The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 201. Islam, Christ, and Liberty | Mustafa Akyol

Episode Date: November 9, 2021

This episode was recorded on October 18th, 2021.Mustafa Akyol joins me to discuss Muslim history and tradition. We touch on subjects like Jesus Christ from a Christian and Muslim perspective, the Virgin Mary's role in the Quran, separation of church and state as an ideology, the dangers of literalism when facing religious texts, and much more.Mustafa Akyol is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, where he focuses on the intersection of public policy, Islam, and modernity. He's contributed as an opinion writer for the New York Times since 2013, covering politics and religion in the Muslim world.Published by W. W. Norton, his 2011 book, "Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty," presents a strong argument for Islamic liberalism. The book was long-listed for the Lionel Gelber Prize for best nonfiction book. It was also praised by The Financial Times as "a forthright and elegant Muslim defense of freedom." His other books include "Reopening Muslim Minds" and "The Islamic Jesus."Find Mustafa's most important book, "Reopening Muslim Minds," herehttps://amazon.com/Reopening-Muslim-Minds-Freedom-ToleranceHis book "The Islamic Jesus," discussed in this episode, is athttps://amazon.com/Islamic-Jesus-Became-Prophet-MuslimsFind a free PDF of his book "Why, As a Muslim, I Defend Liberty" athttps://libertarianism.org/books/why-muslim-i-defend-libertyOr visit his page at the Cato Institute:https://cato.org/people/mustafa-akyol_____[00:00] Introduction[02:47] Regarding the separation of church and state, what do Christians and Muslims have in common?[10:36] What are some similarities between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?[11:05] "I see the world's history, and I see a Judeo-Christian/Islamic history because it's all Abrahamic monotheism starting at Judaism." Mustafa Akyol[11:46] What the Three Abrahamic religions have in common—monotheism, rooting in the same tradition; and strange insistence on a book as the bedrock of culture[12:45] Unique ideas of religious and societal tolerance through different ages in history[21:10] The connection Jesus and Islam[28:45] What is the totalitarian impulse?[29:30] "I think it is an understatement of the severity of the totalitarian problem to attribute it merely to the religious." - Jordan Peterson[31:27] Critiquing the inevitable flaws of the purely secular state. The benefits of a higher law on the unification of people and not deifying human rulers[34:59] "There is another value in Sharia law—[it] was separate from the rulers, even above the rulers." - Mustafa Akyol[39:35] Briefly touching on the ruling class in Saudi Arabia. A brief history of the Wahhabi's rise to power, and how a group of extreme thinkers gained more power than would have been naturally possible[45:36] Bad Ideas from the West are, in fact, devastating[48:45] A modern Muslim's take on religion, power, and the birth of Islam with the prophet Muhammad[55:15] "The whole thorny moral problem of what to do when you are being oppressed is not something let's say as a species we have figured out." - JBP[01:18:51] "The inherent problem with literalism in interpretation. The perspective of the reader creates so much of the truth in this model that they can then impose on the world around them." - JBP[01:26:20] Regarding reason and Sharia law, one group has said that Sharia indicates what's inherently right and wrong in the world. Another group, that it only creates that difference through the imposition[01:27:01] Mary's role in the Quran and Islamic tradition[01:31:29] The influence of gnostic Christian gospels on Muhammad in Mustafa's opinion. The odd state of the Jewish Christians who were accepted by neither side[01:35:16] Final questions on Jesus Christ from Christian and Muslim perspectives[01:43:35] Wrapping up_____

This episode is brought to you by Helix, sleep, GQ and Wired's number one mattress of 2020. I'm obsessed with these. They have the best mattress I've slept on and not just by a little bit. It's better than any mattress by a lot. It's like sleeping on a cloud. No top or necessary, obviously. I cannot tell you how much I love these guys. There's more, too. They have a very long warranty. You don't have to go to a store to get them. Is there anything worse than lying on what's essentially a public mattress? Honestly, there are many things that are worse than that. But still with Helix finding the perfect mattress is super easy. Just take the quiz at Helix sleep.com slash Jordan.

Order the bed your match to and it'll be shipped right to your door for free. They all come with a 10-year warranty and you can try it for 100 days risk-free. They'll even pick it up if you don't love it. The Helix Quiz matches your body type and sleep preferences so you can easily find the perfect mattress for you. I took the Helix Quiz and was matched with the Helix Midnight. Right now, Helix is offering up to $200 off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners at helixleap.com slash Jordan. Take their two-minute sleep quiz and they'll match you to a customized mattress for the best sleep of your life. That's helixleap.com slash Jordan for $200 off and two free pillows. Welcome to the Jordan B. Peterson Podcast, season 4, episode 56. This episode was recorded on October 18, 2021.

Mustafa Akyol joined a dad to discuss Islam as a whole. They talked about the different roles Jesus and Mary play in Islam and Christianity, about the dangers of literal readings of religious texts, and the separation of church and state, just to name a few things. Mustafa is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute where he focuses on the intersection of public policy, Islam, and modernity. He's been an opinion writer for the New York Times since 2013 where he covers politics and religion in the Muslim world.

His 2011 book, Islam Without Extremes, a Muslim case for Liberty, was long listed for the Lionel Galber Prize. It offers a strong case for Islamic liberalism that's also been praised by the Financial Times calling it an elegant Muslim defensive freedom. His other books include reopening Muslim minds in the Islamic Jesus. I hope you enjoy this episode. Hello, everyone. I'm pleased today to have as my guest, Mustafa Akul. He is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, where he focuses on the intersection between public policy Islam and modernity. Since 2013, he's also been a frequent opinion writer for the New York Times covering politics and religion in the Muslim world. He's the author of several books including

the most recent reopening Muslim minds a return to reason freedom and tolerance 2021. Why I as a Muslim? Sorry, why as a Muslim I defend liberty, which is also 2021. The Islamic Jesus, how the King of the Jews became a prophet of the Muslims 2017, and Islam without extremes, a Muslim case for liberty, liberty, 2011. His books have been translated into many languages and praised in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, the Economist, the Financial Times, and many publications across the Muslim world. Meanwhile, Islam without extremes was banned in Malaysia for challenging the authority of the religion police, so to speak.

The Thinking Muslim, a popular podcast recently defined Akil as probably the most notable Muslim modernist and reformer. So that's really something. And in July 2021, Prospect Magazine in the UK listed him among the world's top 50 thinkers. And that's quite the pinnacle. He's been thinking about the problems of making peace in the modern world for a very long time and stressing the need for a liberalization in the Islamic world, and perhaps some modification on the Christian side as well, along the lines at least of what happened in the West. He's interested in theological questions, as well as political questions, and I'm particularly

interested in talking to him because the conflict between Islam and the Jewish and the Christian worlds is a theological and political problem as well as a psychological problem. So welcome. I'm very much looking forward to this conversation. And I hope I have many more of the same with many Islamic thinkers. So thanks for agreeing to talk to me. Thank you so much, Dr. Peterson. It's a pleasure and a privilege to have this conversation with you. And I hope this should be the beginning of broader conversations between Muslims and Western intellectuals on the crucial issues of peace, coexistence, freedom, toleration that we all need to have and need to cultivate in our respective traditions. So let me start with a really difficult issue and I've been thinking a lot

about lately partly because of the, well, some of the, hmm, what would you say, incomprehensible goings on that the devil, the Western world, at the moment, you know, I've been thinking a lot about his statement in the New Testament about rendering unto God what is God's and unto Caesar, what is Caesar's idea that there's a clear distinction between those two. And I believe that to be true for psychological reasons, as well as political reasons. And it's an extraordinarily notable statement in my estimation.

I don't know if you could find a single sentence that anyone has ever said that has had a bigger impact on the history of the world, because as I understand it, that statement was the justification for the development in the west of political processes that were independent of the theological substructure beneath them and the justification for that, that there were separate domains and that was okay, theologically. And so I want to know if that's your understanding of the situation as well. And then we can talk about what that means for Islam, where I understand that it's not so obvious, let's say, that such a distinction can be easily drawn.

I would totally agree with you that separation of church and state in the Western tradition has been a blessing for humanity. I mean, West itself and the broader, I think, human story. And I think that's evident in the fact that what Muslims are on the world today who are persecuted in their countries come to live in the West and where they find freedom. And if it was a Christian theocracy, they wouldn't be happily living there. I mean, a few times I said that, I mean, there's one country in which all denominations of Islam happily live together without any sectarian persecution, and that is the United States of America. And I'm sure Canada is doing pretty well, or UK. Yeah, pretty well.

One thing, I mean, some models of separation of religion and states sometimes went ill-liberal towards religion, authoritarian towards religion, and that's a problem. For example, I see that in the French and I see that tradition. And when secularism is understood in that sort of intolerant way, and somehow a bias towards religion, actually it becomes harder to accept from a religious point of view. And one problem in the Islamic tradition

is that we always had the French version in my country, Turkey, and in Tunisia. So we never got a full sense of a liberal, classically liberal idea of secularism. But I mean, that's the political story. I mean, we can discuss more. But coming back to your point, it is remarkable that actually a statement from Jesus Christ,

right there in the New Testament, has been discovered and used to justify the suppression, church, and state. I mean, the very life story of Christ is interesting. I mean, he was never the state, right? He was actually persecuted by the state. So there's a great story there. But I will also remind you one thing.

For centuries, Christians didn't understand the render on to Caesar and render on to God as the justification of secularism. Actually, it was used to justify divine rights of kings as well. Robert Filmer makes that argument in his patriarchy and John Locke argues against him. So it was used by Christians to defend divine rights of kings, but then other Christians said, hey, no, no, no, there's a better understanding of this. actually says there are separate authorities here. And the one that the divine authority is what we're loyal to. And the political one should be based on contracts. So that gave us, of course, the liberal tradition

that I highly value. But I will say a similar process of rereading the scripture is taking place in the Muslim world in the past few centuries, past two centuries in the late 19th century. A tradition broadly called Islamic modernism, which I hope to represent, and I'm trying to advance. Also said, well, there are messages in the Quran that our classical scholars maybe didn't fully get or didn't fully develop because in their

time and context it wasn't possible. But now we see the full meaning of that. For example, one example is a powerful statement in the Quran which reads Laikrahafiddin in Arabic, which means there is no compulsion in religion. I mean, it doesn't say secular state, but it means religion should be based on no compulsion in other words freedom. And this was there in the Quran for centuries and Muslims made only a little sense of this. They said, okay, this means you will not convert people to enter Islam. Generally, that was observed in the classical Islamic tradition.

That's why Jews and Christians could live on their Islam. But they didn't understand it in other ways. For example, this should mean that perhaps if people want to convert out of Islam, that is apostasy. It should be free to base on this worse. But no, no, no, they said, you know, actually, it doesn't mean that way. So they limited the meaning of the worse. And of course, there was religious policing, checking people out really pie or not, or persecution of heretics.

These things happen in Islamic history. But now other Muslim thinkers are saying, listen, when God said, there is no compulsion in religion, it's a universal statement of no compulsion in other words, religious freedom. So that's a new statement of no compulsion in other words religious freedom. So that's a new reading that Muslim scholars, of the more modernist or reformist, I think, persuasion, have been advocating in the past, let's say two century. And my book was banned in Malaysia precisely because I irrigated religious freedom based on such a coronic basis. Well, the pathway from a statement like that to a fully developed political and theological system that are separate in the details, but somehow still able to mutually function.

And in some sense, one still containing the other, I would argue, even in the United States, it's one country under God. That's in the background all the time in some sense. And I would also say that the elevation of the right to free speech as perhaps the primary right, and I'm speaking psychologically here to some degree, is a reflection in the political domain, I think of what was being developed symbolically in Christian theology with the idea of the divine word.

And that idea in many many ways, is older than Christianity. It's older than Judaism as well. You can see, I've traced that back to, for example, to the Mesopotamian writings about Mardek, who was, the God who emerged at the pinnacle of the Mesopotamian gods and who was the model for the sovereign of the Mesopotamian emperor, and he had eyes all the way around his head and he spoke magic words. And so even if you trace our stories back, as far back as we've been able to trace them, the idea that there was something divine about the word itself, and we could have a discussion about what that divinity means.

I'm interested in doing that because you wrote this book, the Islamic Jesus, how the King of the Jews became a prophet of the Muslims. That's all of this tangled up in some sense in the figure of Christ, historically and mythologically. And so in the West, I think we managed to maintain the relationship between the secular and the religious by putting forth these axiomatic rights, which are in some sense religious in their derivation. And they slaughtered nicely into the religious under structure, but then simultaneously allowed for enough freedom, so the political could do its own thing. And so that's partly why I'm so curious about your writings about Christ and about his place in Muslim thinking. Obviously, in the West, whatever

Christ was, was elevated to the highest place, right? Now, how do you understand? Now, I know Christ is a major figure in Islamic thinking, but there are differences. So can you help me? Can you wade me through that to some degree? Definitely. First of all, to answer a discussion, I should just maybe make one broad statement.

And that is that in the Western world, in the 20th century, people began to speak about the Judeo-Christian tradition. And I think it's a very valuable way of looking into the world. began to speak about the Judeo-Christian tradition, and I think it's a very valuable way of looking into the world. Yes, there's a Judeo-Christian tradition. But I think there is something missing in that, there's Islam that is missing, because I think I see the world history, and I look at there's a Judeo-Christian Islamic tradition, because it's all Abrahamic monotheism coming from actually from Judaism and Judaism had began, I mean, historically, initiated monotheism and then it had a big outburst with Christianity, the greatest

outbursts, but the greatest world, the greatest religion. But then six centuries later, it had a second outburst with Islam, which spread monotheism in four corners of the world. I mean, there are people in living in Indonesia whose name is Moses or Abraham. I mean, why are theyistic. Two, they partake of the same tradition, as you've pointed out. And three, they all have to one degree or another an insistence that the bedrock of culture is a book, which is a very strange insistence that it's taken for granted in some sense because it's been insisted upon so long. But this is something that, like, it's very difficult to see in some ways that a book lasts longer than a city or an empire or a country. And there's something profound about the notion

that the bedrock of a culture should be a book. And there is an implicit respect for the word in that insistence. And that does unite those three religions in a very profound way. It does, and I think it can, it has created these amazing civilizations which advance human history, and I think the very fact that Islam speaking of Islam, advance human history in terms of pluralism, in terms of law, in terms of religious toleration

for its time, I think, is undeniable. And the fact that Islam even brought Greek philosophy because of its universalism, Muslims believe in the book, but they believe that reason is also from God. So they just created a universalist outlook, and Muslims studied Aristotle and Plato and even carried them to Europe. So there is an amazing history there, which are the positive things, but also there are times that these religious civilizations sometimes go into a crisis and they go self-destructive and bitter. And that has happened in Europe. I mean, and if you're looking to 17th century, early 17th century Europe and Catholics and Protestants were

killing each other for exacterian reasons. I mean, heretics were being burned at the stake. And which led people like John Locke to seek a way out. And they did it by looking into the core of religion and saying that this is not what Christ had told us. I mean, Locke says, I mean, when I read his letter concerning toleration, I said, well, he's speaking of Christian issues, but he's speaking of our issues, too. The idea that should there be a Christian state or not, should heretics be persecuted or

not. So he makes certain arguments or would religion be based on sincerity if it is coerced by the state? It wouldn't. So there's no point in coercion. So those kind of arguments are, I think, very interesting, which I, that's why I believe in reading these traditions as by learning from each other. Instead of thinking, oh, there are the Christians and they have nothing to do with us.

Or these are Muslims, they have nothing to do with us. Well, the problem with that perspective, you know, those are the Muslims and they have nothing to do with us, is that underneath such a presumption is, let's say, the presumption that Christians and Muslims can't talk, but even deeper that than that is the presumption on the and Muslims can't talk, but even deeper that, and that is the presumption on the part of the person making such a statement that their interpretation of Christianity is absolutely right. And that seems ridiculously presumptuous to me, because I don't think that you could find a Christian worth his salt, let's say, who would regard himself as stellar

exemplar of Christianity as Christ. And, you know, since we all fall short of the glory of God, we're all stupid and ignorant beyond belief. And so we have to listen to other people because they might know something we don't. And then you say, if we take that other attitude, then there's an implicit totalitarianism already there, which is, well, I'm right, and you're not only wrong, but wrong in some way that's probably malevolent. And sometimes that's true, but it's not a good way to start a conversation.

It is not. And I think religion becomes most dangerous when it is combined with group narcissism and acting in the name of God to punish people for their sins and heresies, you know, as you define them. And that has happened in Islam. It still happens. I mean, groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, those terrorists. I mean, they are attacking Westerners, but they're attacking fellow Muslims too. And by defining them as heretics, I mean, we see bombs of Shiites being, sorry,

masks of Shiites being bombed by ISIS terrorists in the past two months, it happened twice. And this is a destructive dynamic, which has been always extreme in Islam, but existed. And, but there are antidotes to this sort of thinking as well. And I sometimes read those antidotes and I say, oh, in the Christian tradition, here's an example of that. I mean, if you can, for example, let me give you an example. One, the big dispute in early Islam was who was the true Muslim?

Like, there was a civil war between the first Muslims, it's called the first Fidnafers, and supporters of Ali and Moavi added two figures, and I was sympathized with Ali, but they had a war, and there's a fanatic faction called the Havaraj, the Decenters, and they said, these are both, they have gone wrong. They have sinned because they have sinned. They're not Muslims, they become infidels and infidels should be punished.

So they started killing them. They were like the terrorists of the first century, always hated by mainstream Muslims. But what they were doing is to judge people and punish them in the name of God. But there was an alternative theology called Murgea theology and it's called Murgea in Arabic means Posponer. They said, on this issue of who's right and wrong, we don't know, we cannot judge, only God can judge.

So let's postpone this to afterlife to be resolved by God. And until then, until it is resolved by God in heaven, when we go there, we can live and let live. So they promote a toleration among Muslims. Now, this actually allowed calling down some of the early violence and brought coexistence in different factions of Islam. And I think still, it was brought into Sunni Islam

by Abu Hanifa and the Hanifids School and at a broader acceptance. And I was particularly struck to read something very similar in John Locke in his letter concerning toleration. He says there are different churches. For every church, the third is theirs. They are orthodox to themselves. And if one of them dominates government,

they will persecute others. And he says, let's leave this to Almighty, the judge, to decide which doctrine is right. And in the meantime, let the government only protect the rights, the natural rights of all people and let people follow. That's part of the thorny psychological problem of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God, what is God's because a lot of times now when people talk about tolerance they insist that judgment is wrong and In essence in some sense and the reason they're afraid of judgment is because in its extremes It can lead to the demonization of others and we know exactly where that goes

But there's no dispensing with judgment You can't even look at something without judgment because you have to pick what you're going to look at instead of something else. And you can't act without judgment. And so all of us are faced with this problem of what we should believe and how we can be tolerant at the same time we believe and how we can be tolerant at the same time we believe, and how we can be tolerant at the same time

that we have to judge. And there's a kernel in that insistence by lock. It was lock you were referring to, or was it Mills? They let, they let her on tolerance. I was referring to John Locke, sorry. It's lock, yeah, okay. And you just slip my mind for a second. It's very difficult for us to figure out what we can tolerate if we must simultaneously

believe, right? And that's a problem I've been trying to work out psychologically for a very long time. It's, you do that, you see that in your own family, when you're a father, let's say, because you obviously have to have tolerance for your children, but at the same time, you see that in your own family, even your father, let's say, because you obviously have to have tolerance for your children, but at the same time, you're obligated to show them the difference, let's say, between right and wrong and also to help them separate the week from the chaff,

which is judgment. And so, well, I totally see the point, the balance you're pointing out here, but I agree with it. That's why I use the term tolerance, because I mean, you might not need to accept everything and cherish and bless everything, but you need to accept different ways of life

or theologies or doctrines. And by judgment, I mean, of course, we can have value judgments. I judge a lot of people in society. I say these people are bigoted or these people are arrogant, and or dare of life is destructive for themselves. I have those judgments,

but I'm not gonna go and punish them in the name of God unless they attack me. So there should be a social order in which we can disapprove people, ways of life religious belief, theologies. And our religions make through statements and we cannot get away from that. I mean, you say, Christ is God,

the other person will say, well, no, that's not acceptable for my theology. So there are gaps that we cannot get away from that. I mean, you say, Christ's God, the other person will say, well, no, that's not acceptable for my theology. So there are gaps that we cannot, and we should not try to make disappear, but we can live together. And that's why tolerance is the key idea. And that's why by judgment, what I'm referring to is judging and punishing in the name of God. And of course, crime will be punished,

I mean, theft will be punished or murdered will be punished. But if someone has a doctor and a religious doctor and that I find wrong, I should tolerate that person, although I can, you know, criticize of course, and I can be criticized back, which what free speech allows of course for us. So I mean, sorry, you asked me about Christ,

but I, I mean, I opened a broader chapter if you wanna, you wanna me to go into that discussion, I, I, I mean, I opened a broader chapter if you will. You want to, you want me to go into that discussion? Yes. Yes. That would be good. I mean, for a lot of Christians who may not much know much about the Muslim world, I mean, it might be surprising to learn that the most prominent female figure in the whole Quran is Mary. figure in the whole Quran is Mary. Actually, she's the only woman mentioned by name. There's a chapter named Mary. There's a chapter named after her family, Alimran. And the Quran, because the calling of the Quran is to say, this is a new, this is not a new religion, this is monotheism, Muhammad is God's messenger, but God had other messengers before. There was Moses, there was Abraham, there was Jesus Christ, and there was his Mary.

And the Quran tells a story of Mary to affirm something which is, again, might be surprising to Christians. The Quran affirms the virgin birth of Christ. That Mary was a chase woman. She didn't, she was not touched by any man and one day she heard an angel coming and say, you will have a son. And she says, how can I have a son? No man has ever touched me. But, but the angel says, this is what God will. And he wills and he creates. So that is how he wills and he creates. So that is how Christ, Christ, you know, comes to, you know, his mother's womb and ultimately he comes and the Quran calls in the word of God. Again, this is a very powerful statement if you're if one is familiar with the gospel of John and this is very unusual. But the

same Quran also insists that he was not divine, so he should not be worshipped. So on the one hand, it reverse Mary and Jesus. It tells a lot of things very similar to gospel of Luke, and some apocalyptic full gospels also resonate strongly with the Quran interestingly. So there's great respect, great reverence. There are good words about Christians. I mean, in words, the Quran says, among all people, you will love the Christians nearest to the believers. That's the Muslims. Because it says they're not arrogant and they have learned scholars. And so there are a lot of positive things, because Islam was born, let's not forget that Islam was born as a monotheist campaign in an idolatrous society. Meccans were worshiping idols and Prophet Muhammad's who didn't

think of becoming a prophet until the age of 40. He heard the voice in a cave, angel Gabriel, like a burning bush, experience of Moses, which told him, recite in the name of God who created man, and then he became convinced that he's God's prophet, and he started to preach monotheism. And when you preach monotheism, Muslims consider Jews and Christians as our allies. That's why Muslims were persecuted in Mecca. Prophet Muhammad told a group of Muslims to flee to Ethiopia,

the Christian kingdom of Ethiopia. They went there and they were really saved by the Christian King. That's a memory that Muslims have. So there is that monetization. So what does it mean in Islam that Christ, well two things that you said that Christ is, his birth is, the Virgin birth is accepted. That's a major issue which we should also discuss, and also the emphasis on Mary and what that means, let's say, for the position of women, theologically within Islam, and also what does it mean when Muslims claim, believe that Christ is the Word of God? Now, it's hard for me, as a Westerner, to separate that out from claims of divinity. And we could also talk in some sense about worship,

about what worship means. And so when I try to look at these things from a psychological perspective as much as possible and stay out of theological territory where I'm a neo-fight in any case, one of the things that worship means to me psychologically is something like the desire or compulsion to imitate. And I think about to worship something is to place it in the place of highest value.

And you know, people claim to think that action speak louder than words. And I think that's a reasonable proposition. If you act something out, it's pretty compelling evidence that you believe it. And that means in some ways that you hold it in the highest place. And so to worship is to imitate, I think, in the deepest sense. It might be to celebrate what should be imitated as well, something like that. And this is a complicated issue because we're unbelievably imitative. And I was struck when my kids were little, when they were playing house, for example, my son would play out the father.

And you might say, well, he was copying his dad. But he wasn't, because he wasn't moving the same way he saw me move. What he was doing was watching me over a whole variety of instances, and then also watching portrayals of fathers in media, movies and TV shows and that sort of thing, and abstracting out from that some kind of, I would call it, it's like a disembodied spirit which represented the core essence of paternity, and then imitating that. And I see in that the

biological underpinnings, let's say, of what religious people talk about when they talk about worship. So when the Muslim world regards Christ as the word of God, but not divine, I don't know how to understand that. Very good question. I mean, it says in the Quran that he is a word from God, and it doesn't explain much. And Muslims discuss what this means exactly. It's not certainly understood in the way that the Gospel of John defines that word was with God and word was God.

So that's the beginning of time. Yeah So that's not the set of time. Yeah, that's not the step taken there. Most common interpretations said, well, he was the word of God in the sense that God, it was the word of God directed to Mary. So God, he was created with the creative word B in Mary's body. So that's what it means. So that's generally a low-crestology, if you will.

But there are alternative views, which I mentioned, in my book, in the Islamic Jesus, that some people said maybe he was the word of God in the sense that he was the revelation itself. Like everything he did and said was revelation, like God's living word, which still though, which means he was something like the Quran. Like Quran, we believe is revelation, God's revelation. So he was the revelation, became flesh,

rather than revelation, became a book. And that's why the New Testament narrates about Jesus. I mean, it's, he is the revelation and New Testament are reports about the revelation. So that's, I think that's possible to, that's a step possible to take within the Quranic framework. However, still Muslims don't worship the Quran. I mean, you say, still God is beyond. I mean, God is another transcendent, at another transcendent level. And in his two days of years. So let's let's talk about that in relationship to the totalitarian impulse. Okay, I mean, I was I just had a discussion with Sam Harris.

And I mentioned that I was going to be talking to some Islamic scholars. I didn't mention you by name. And I asked him if he might want to participate in such a discussion. He said he's done that. He's done there. He's been there and done that. And so he wasn't particularly interested in that. Although we had a wonderful conversation. This episode was brought to you by Elysium Health. If you've been listening to this podcast for a while, you've heard me talk about Elysium and their products basis and matter. I'm very excited to tell you about their new supplement Format for immune health. Powered by three great complexes and three foundational micronutrients, Format is the first and only product to take this innovative two system approach to immune health,

combining a daily supplement with a monthly senolytic for next generation immune support. Why Elysium? First off, they have dozens of the world's best scientists working with them, and eight of them are Nobel Prize winners. Elysium was founded by MIT's Dr. Leonard Guarante, one of the first specialists in aging science with over 30 years of research in the field. They know what they're doing. Formats seniletic complex, which is based on research done at the Mayo Clinic, clears problematic cells that slow down the immune system. Over time, some of our cells

stop working as well as they used to, but linger in the body and cause inflammation. A bit like trash that needs to be taken out. This is known as cellular senescence. It happens at all ages, and accelerates as you get older. Stress caused by free radicals can also trigger cellular sentiscence, driving immune system aging and keeping it from performing at its peak. It's time to think proactively about our immune systems. What sets format apart is its unique two system approach to targeting the cellular processes that impact the performance of your immune system. If you want to try this next generation patented supplement by Elysium, they have a special offer now for JBP listeners.

Go to triformat.com slash Jordan and enter code JBP10 at checkout to save 10% off format prepaid plans as well as other Elysium health supplements. That's triformat.com slash Jordan code JBP10 at checkout for 10% off. But one of the, what I see happening very frequently with thinkers like Harris and I'm saying this with all due respect I truly am, is that for them there is very little distinction between the religious and the totalitarian.

And that's the essence of the objection. Now Sam has come to regard some domains as sacred. And we talked a lot about that. And I think that it's an understatement of the severity of the totalitarian problem to attribute it merely to the religious. And the part of the reason I think to attribute it merely to the religious. And the part of the reason I think that is, well, look what happened in the 20th century in the West.

Just like, well, there was the Nazis and how about Mao and then there's Stalin. And you know, you could say those were religions, but you know, you're pretty. You're weasel, you're using weasel words at that point. You expand the definition of what constitutes religion so it doesn't violate your initial presuppositions. And so we could see in Christianity and in Judea as a man in Islam, the constant human struggle to deal with whatever is the

totalitarian impulse, which is something like insistence that what I already know is, well, is literally the word of God, it's in some sense, it's absolutely true. I have the knowledge, there shall be no deviation from that and to identify that with tradition in religion, I think is a big mistake. It doesn't get to the issue. I'm totally on the same page with you on that. I mean, the history of the 20th century shows that some of the greatest crimes against humanity were committed by secular ideologies.

I mean, communism and Nazism as you well put. And today probably the worst totalitarian regimes in the world, number one is North Korea. I mean, it's not a really, it's a secular state, but it's a bit a jouchy called ideology, but it's totally secular. So being, I mean, I'm in favor of a secular state in terms of a neutral state that respects everybody's rights

regardless of religion or creed, but secularization of society it doesn't necessarily bring anything good. I mean, we have seen that. Okay, so let's talk about that for a second. So I've been trying to figure out, all right. So one of the things I realized a long time ago as a psychologist was that there were depths of meaning. And we have intimations of this constantly.

So for example, we can read a book and we think that was shallow and we can read another book and we think that was deep. And then when we talk to a bunch of other people, they tend to think that the shallow book was shallow and the deep book was deep. And they tend to think that shallow and deep actually means something. And so there's this experience of depth. Now, I've tried to figure out what that meant exactly, and what occurred to me was that, and this was partly derived from watching people in my clinical practice. So imagine, people will get much more upset about a pending divorce than they will about a discussion about who should do the dishes. And you think, well, that's obvious. It's like, yeah, it's obvious because that's what happens to you, but it isn't easy to explain. So what I thought was what I hypothesized was something like, we have representations of the world

of different sizes and different temporal expanses, a small plan for the day nested inside a plan for the week and nested inside a plan for the month the year nested inside our family nested inside our community nested inside our polity nested inside our theology Okay, and the deeper you go the more those representations are dependent on the more representations are dependent on that level. And so when something happens to you where you're deeply affected or traumatized, let's say, technically, what's happened is that you've taken a blow to a representation

upon which almost all your other representations depend. And so then you could think technically about the difference between the secular and the religious as being one of depth. Once you go down to the fundamental sub-strata, so that would be the most axiomatic of presuppositions, whether you're secular or not, you're in the religious domain.

Okay, okay, okay. So I mean, the people who call themselves secular, secular or not, you're in the religious domain. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. So I mean, the people who called themselves secular, and of course, I have many friends who are secular, and I respect that point of view, but they have metaphysical beliefs at the end of the day. I mean, if you say the universe always existed and matter made us, and you know, that's your creation story.

I mean, every, every worldview has ultimately a metaphysical dimension, even if it does accept. Like coming back to your totalitarianism point, though. Yeah. We have totalitarian entities right now, I mean, in the world, in the name of Islam. I mean, I think the Iranian Republic is pretty much the Islamic Republic of Iran,

pretty close to that. Saudi Arabia is, I mean, very oppressive. And these are the two most oppressive interpretations of Islam. ISIS is like Khmer Rouge. I mean, he was the Khmer Rouge of the Islamic spectrum. So it was pretty evil and very, I think, totalitarian too. But there was something though in classical Islam.

Although I have a lot of criticisms towards medieval jurisprudence, but there was a value in classical Islam, although I have a lot of criticisms towards medieval jurisprudence, but there was a value in classical Islam. And that value was in this word, which is a generally scary word in the Western today. And that's the Sharia, that's God's law. I mean, there are two phases of the Sharia. There are a lot of things about women and apostasy

and blasphemy that I keep criticizing that we have to reform those aspects. But there was another value in the Sharia, which highlighted my book, New Book, as almost my defend liberty. The Sharia was a set of laws that were separate from the rulers. They were even above the rulers.

Like Sharia wasn't what the Sultan required or wanted. The Sharia was the law of God articulated by scholars who were generally independent of the rulers. That's why the classical medieval Islamic civilization wasn't totalitarian. There were a lot of autocratic rulers tyrants, but they were mitigated by the Sharia. And I tell us. So this is also something that I think people like Harris, let's say, and those atheist rationalists, I think they fail to understand the necessity of that. So I mentioned ancient Mesopotamia a while back, but one thing that happened in that society was that the emperor would be taken outside the gates of the city. So it was a walled city. Once a year at the New Year's

Festival and he would be stripped of his emperor, emperor, garb and forced to kneel and then the priest would slap him with a glove and he would be forced to recite all the ways that he hadn't been an appropriate martyr, which was the high god for the last year. So he hadn't seen what he should see if he wasn't being blind and he hadn't said what he should have said if he was speaking the right kind of magic. And so he was humbled in front of what was highest. And the Mesopotamians were working hard, you know, in their mythology. You see this battle between the gods in the face of an apocalyptic danger. And this is a very common story worldwide, this battle between the gods, so what's highest in the face of an apocalyptic danger, and the emergence of a supreme principle, which constitutes the essence of sovereignty itself. And if you have a society, a secular society, let's say, where that highest thing isn't outside the polity, in some sense, then you have North Korea where the leader is elevated

to the status of a god. And then you have hell. And that seems like a bad idea. Exactly, you have Stalin, you have Mao, you have all those modern dictators. And you have the Islamist totalitarian regimes today because the Islamist totalitarians of today differ from the classical medieval Islamic tradition.

I mean, imagine, I mean, look at Taliban today. I mean, Taliban has dominated Afghanistan once again. The head of the Taliban is also the head of the executive and the judiciary and the ex, I mean, legislation. So that wasn't like that in classical Islam. That was a ruler, but there were also scholars who were independent from the, they were independent in the beginning and rulers gradually actually co-opted scholars and that was the beginning of the doom of the decline of the Islamic civilization. My friend Ahmet Kuru has a very good book about that. He shows how the scholars, religious scholars who developed law were gradually co-opted by the state, by the rulers, and that actually killed the diversity and dynamism of Islamic thought.

You know, it means that they've been lowered from the ultimate to the political particular, and that's a catastrophe. Exactly, and I mean, there are many tales in Islamic civilization. Today, I think we can highlight to articulate values like rule of law or separation of powers. I mean, I tell one of them, for example, we know that in Ottoman history,

Ottoman sultans were stopped by rulers, sometimes from executing people out of just anger, or confiscating property, or over-taxing the population. They said this text is not compatible with the Shere, you can over-tax people. So, they said this text is not compatible with the Shirei, you can over-tax people. So there was a balance in the classical Islamic civilization, which worked for its time. And let's not forget that the classical Islamic civilization had a toleration, which again was not very common at the time. That's why when Jews are persecuted in Europe,

they often fled to the Islamic lands, I mean, the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately, today we have a crisis in the Islamic civilization. We lost some of the blessings of the classical tradition. That tradition itself stagnated, it's jurisprudence stagnated. And then we had the modern state. And these Islamic movements came with the passion

to grab the modern state and use it in the name of Islam, which created a deadly mix of medieval jurisprudence and modern totalitarianism, which is the story of the Iranian the name of Islam, which created a deadly mix of medieval jurisprudence and modern totalitarianism, which is the story of the Iranian Islamic Republic of Iran. Saudi Arabia is going towards a direction in the Andhra. Now let's talk about the Saudis for a second, if you don't mind. Yeah, sure, sure.

Okay, because why not do something incredibly dangerous? I mean, I am stunned at the naivety of the West in rendering unto the Wahhabis a fortune of staggering magnitude and thinking that in some way this was a recipe for medium and long term peace. I mean, I don't, how, why do you think we're so stupid just out of curiosity? I mean, I think every government in the world is stupid in the sense that they make decisions on very short-term interests without really understanding the long-term consequences.

The stupidity of Western governments just have more impact because they have more power to shape things. Regarding to Wahhabis, I mean, for example, I mean, first of all, let's establish what Wahhabis is. Wah, for example, I mean, first of all, let's establish what Wahhabism is. Wahhabism is, I mean, I compare, first of all, Islam should be compared more to Judaism than Christianity to make I think meaningful analogies, because of its theology is very similar to Judaism and the idea of law, Sharia and Halakah are very similar

traditions. So in Islam, Sunni Islam is like orthodox Judaism. It's the mainstream body, right? Traditional conservative, but it has some flexibility. And then there's the orthodox, you know, tradition in Judaism. So Wahhabism represents the orthodox point of view with a violent and intolerant bent to it. So that emerged in the 18th century in the Ottoman Empire. And their first targets were other Muslims. I mean, they couldn't then the Ottoman Empire for being into a heresy and bida as they call it innovation. They attacked Sunnis, fellos Sunnis

and also slaughtered Shiites, which they consider as heretics. Then when the Ottoman Empire bent slave trade in the middle of the 19th century, there was a revolt in hijaz, fueled by Ahabis. They said Turks have gone infidels because slavery is in our jurisprudence. You cannot change that. Although the Ottomans were more flexible in their understanding. But until the 20th century, Ahabism was a very regressive force in the middle of the Arabian

desert, the Egypt, which people didn't know that didn't go there. It was a very marginal force. In the 20th century, these people discovered that they are sitting on the top of the world which is oil reserves, which they consider as a blessing from God to use, to advance their understanding. And also, Western powers thought that,

oh, we can use them, we can get a deal with them. First to British thought that, oh, we can use them. I mean, we can get a deal with them. First to British, first to British thought that they could be used against the Ottoman Empire. There was even some discussion that there are like Protestantism, which are potentially more tolerant, which is not, I mean, they're not like Protestants, but they were certainly not tolerance. So that was one thing, first of all,

because the Ottoman Empire being the seat of the caliphate and the superpower, that was the problem. Although you would prefer the Ottomans to the Wahhabi by any definition, because of their toleration and occlusions in fort there at time. And then, of course, so you're making the case to some degree, if I understand you right, that a totalitarian doctrine, let's say, was granted exceptional riches, which there's no possibility they could have accrued, had that theology, that totalitarian theology, had to make its own way in the world.

But because of the vagaries of fate in some sense, there was immense riches at the fingertips of this movement that would have otherwise been and likely remained extraordinarily isolated. What, what, what, what I'm saying is that I mean, there are, I'm not saying that the classical Islamic world was, I mean, it was not ideal. There was a lot of persecution of heretics and here and there are two, but for its time, you wouldn't judge the classical Islamic and civilization and say they have less loses freedom compared to what was

there at Christian them at the time. That's why Jews repeatedly fled to the Muslim world, for example from Spain to the Ottoman Empire. In the modern era, one problem is Islamic jurisprudence, the interpretation of the Sharia stagnated and why that happened is a big discussion on Muslims, but that's one problem. This episode was sponsored by Canva. Making content is an essential part of what I do to keep the show going.

We'll have outsourced that now, but in the beginning, it was me making all the graphics. Canva Pro makes this process seamless. Graphics can be designed on any device. If you don't know who they are, Canva is an excellent design platform made to create and share content. You can choose from thousands of templates and customize them for your projects or just start from scratch. Canva Pro is Canva's premium version and it has an absurd amount of variety. If you're part of a team,

Canva Pro's content planner, which is a great addition, can help you stay organized and really streamline planning, creating and posting by having it all happen in one place. You and four teammates can unlock everything Canva Pro has to offer

for just $12.99 a month. Start designing like a pro with Canva Pro. Right now, you can get a free 45 day extended trial when you use our promo code. Just go to canva.me slash Peterson to get your free 45 day extended trial. That's c-a-n-v-a-dot-m-e slash Peterson. Canva.me slash Peterson. I hope you enjoy the rest of the episode. And the idea of a modern state came. The modern state with its police and its national law controlling everything with its bureaucracy and a cum.

And Islamist movements emerged saying that we will revive the Sharia by grabbing the modern state by all its centralized power. And that created the totalitarian moment in Islamic tradition. And we see that in Saudi Arabia, we see that in Iran, we are seeing that under the Taliban. So there is, and one problem is that Islamic world

in the past two centuries modernized, but we didn't get the good forms of modernity. One thing, I mean, first of all, the only secularism Muslims experience was the French style secularism, which generally, first of all, the only secularism Muslims experience was the French-style secularism, which generally pushed back the believers, because if you say, I'm bringing you secularism, it's a wonderful thing, which means you will not be able to wear a headscarf and go to the campus. Well, there's not much freedom in that secularism, so unfortunately,

it gave bad name to that. Secondly, Arab republics got influenced by Soviet communism. I mean, Arab socialism was a very powerful move in the middle of the 20th century. Republican Turkey, my country, it Westernized, it's good, but you know, it acquired its legal system from fascist Italy in the 1930s. Because let's not forget, I mean, the West was not always a liberal democratic heaven. There were a lot of bad ideas that came from the West. So I see this today in this slumic civilization, a really a perfect storm, a crisis of some, we lost some of the traditions we have,

some of the toleration and pluralism we had back then. There's a stagnant jurisprudence and bad ideas of modernity came. And when you mix them, there's a crisis in every society. And that's why I think we Muslims need ideas that will be new, different than what we have before, but that should be rooted in the tradition. Bad ideas from the West are, in fact, devastating.

I mean, when cultures object to Western hegemony in favor of their local traditions. Let's say I have a certain amount of what would you say, understanding of why they're doing that, because the ideas that emerged after the Renaissance, let's say, especially ideas that undermine religious tradition are unbelievably difficult to withstand, and that's still causing all sorts of trouble in

the West. And it's caused all sorts of political trouble in the West, not least this development of this absolutely anti-liberal totalitarianism that you saw in both Nazism and Communism. And in the West, you know, we like to look at free modernity and say, well, that's us in the last 500 years. But those offshoots, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are just as much a part of that tradition as well as the more positive elements of modernity. And so, and that's where that's why I think that this conflation of the totalitarian impulse with the religious impulse is dangerous. Now, I understand though, there's another issue here that's lurking beneath the surface constantly, is that there's the spiritual element in some sense

of religious perception and practice, and there's the tradition. And you see those juxtaposed to some degree in the New Testament when the Pharisees and the lawyers attempt to trap Christ into saying something heretical when they ask him to rank order the mosaic commandments. What's the most important commandment?

Which implies that some of them aren't so important. And he just sidesteps that so absolutely brilliantly and says, well, if I remember correctly, that you should love God above all else and love your brother like yourself. And what he did there was extract out the essence of the root tradition and make that into something that's an embodied, dynamic, conscious practice. And that's one of those stories you read and you think, what the hell was going on there? How could someone come up with an answer like that? That's such a devastating, remarkable creative answer. And of course, it's had a huge impact on the civilization of the world since then.

But you know, the people who criticize religion, the materialist atheists types, for example, they constantly conflate the problem of the totalitarian proclivity that tradition tends towards if unchecked with religion itself. And that's a huge problem because those aren't the same thing. They're not. And I think religion obviously has become oppressive in world history. When it combines with state power, it becomes the same thing with state power, and that's what theocracy,

and we have examples of that in Christian history, and obviously in Islamic history, but religion can also be a balance to power. It can hold values outside of the power sphere and actually check power. And I think there are grounds for that in the Christian tradition, and of course in the Islamic tradition,

we have to cultivate those. But I think this whole discussion of religion and power requires a rethinking of the very birth story of Islam, how Prophet Muhammad came and what he preached. So and I have some ideas, some some reformist perspectives there. I mean, I can speak about that a little bit. Please do. Please do. Here's one thing that here's one thing that clouds Please do. Here's one thing that clouds thinking about Islam. By sometimes Muslims and by sometimes others. And that is that in the very beginning of Islam,

you see Prophet Muhammad, a preacher, a preacher of monotheism, a prophet, but also somebody who led armies, who led battles, who established a state. So what is going on? So that's why, I mean, some people say, you know, in Christianity, it's much easier to make the case for a secular state, but in Islam,

it's much more difficult because they have the state at the very beginning. And it also makes Muhammad into quite a frightening figure. I mean, on the one hand, when I look at what he did, the fact that it fits in this pattern that has happened time again in religious history, where the warring idolatry was united into a monotheism. And that's a civilizing force. It means that it means integration. And of course, the empire that resulted was one of the largest empires that humans have ever

created. It was an unbelievable achievement. So there's this push towards monotheism and insistence on a highest, like transcendent value, but as you just pointed out at the same time, well, yeah, but there was war and there was conquest. And that's absent from the story of Christ completely. And so it's quite frightening from a Western perspective. I understand that, but that's why I think we need a discussion about that which I offer in my books, especially reopening Muslim minds. And I call for understanding

why Prophet Muhammad had to fight wars. Was that a divine blueprint that he had to fulfill or was that a accident of history that he was forced into? And before that, I'll just say one thing. I mean, we have to compare Islam and Christianity, but to understand Islam also always check the old testament because I think the history of Prophet Muhammad is also very similar to the story of Moses and also the later Joshua and the, you know, wars in the history of Prophet Muhammad is also very similar to the story of Moses and also the later Joshua and the wars in the land of Kenan. And so there are a lot of Old Testament parallels there. So here is what happened at the very birth of Islam.

Prophet Muhammad began preaching monotheism in the city of Mecca in year 2010. Actually, he didn't preach publicly in the beginning. For three years, they were a secret. They were just about 40 people gradually became a community and they publicly began preaching. There's one God and no God. Right. And of course the God of Abraham, it was very clear that this is a continuation of the Abrahamic tradition. Now for 10 years because of this, they were persecuted. The pagan,, the grandies of the city, the leaders

of tribes, they said to Muhammad, you're insulting our religion, you're defying our gods, you're insulting our forefathers. In other words, they accused Prophet Muhammad for blasphemy against their religion, which I think should be in the minds of every Muslim today on free speech issues. But Muslims didn't give up, but Muslims didn't threaten. There was no act of violence. Muslims were not trying to found an army. And actually, there are passages in the Quran, which shows that Muslims were just preaching their faith. And one of them reads, to you, your religion and to me mine. I mean, that was a statement made to the pagans. And other one says, the truth is from your Lord, let anyone who want to believe it,

believe it, let anyone who want to disbelieve it, disbelieve it. Another word says to Muhammad, oh Muhammad, you're just a preacher, you're not a compiler over people. And if God had willed, everybody would believe, but you know, God let it this way. So there's a very non, there's a non-political and non-violent message right there in Mecca. Now, I ask a question that generally people didn't ask. What if the Mecca said, OK, do what you do? And what if the Mecca said, let the Muslims go

and preach their religion? I think the history of Islam would be different, because Muslims were just going to peaceful preach the faith, probably the faith would grow, and it would gradually win over the city, and still the Kaaba would be transformed into a monotheistic temple, but we have different history. What's rather happened is that they persecuted the Muslims,

they killed Muslims. Some of them had to flee to Ethiopia, as I said. They were almost coming to kill Prophet Muhammad himself, assassinate him, and that's why he finally fled Mecca and went to the city, Yathrib called Medina later. And there he established a community, he established a group of people, he became a political leader in the city.

And all their properties were plundered after they were left, their homes were raided, and they were sold, they were raided by the pagans. And then came the first verse of the Quran, which allowed war, jihad, I mean military jihad in the name of God. And that verse in Surah Hajj is very interesting. It says, permission to fight has been given to those

who have been persecuted. They were persecuted because they said our Lord is one. They were driven out of their homes because they said our Lord is one. They were driven out of their homes because they said our Lord is one. So the war aspect, the war part of the story, was a reaction to persecution, the ongoing persecution. Once you start war, it went on. There were many battles, like in the 10 last years, the 10 years in Mecca, there are raids, there are battles, there are fights, and when you read the Quran today in certain chapters, so it would have nine, for example, to swear a tabai,

you will see harsh passages, go and fight the unbelievers, go and find them, go and kill them, you know. And those are historical commandments directing the first Muslim community, just like commandments in the Old Testament, telling Joshua or the Israelites, you know, to fight the Amalekites, you know, the tribes in the land of Canaan, they were trying to kill the Israelites. So I understand the war aspect there as an outcome of an oppressive environment which wouldn't let Islam to grow and even exist. So Muslims had to fight not because they wanted, but they were forced into.

However, a problem of what you should do when you're oppressed is not something that we've, as a species, let's say, have completely figured out. I mean, in Christianity, I would say, or propose that one of the prime junctions is just to turn the other cheek. But that didn't seem to apply. So obviously, let's say in the decades leading to World War II. And so, it's not like every society doesn't have to wrestle with this problem. I mean, Christ is presented as a peacemaker. There's no doubt about that, but he's also presented in the book of Revelation as a judge who separates the damn from the elect. And there's a harshness in that as well. And so,

I don't think it's going to go ahead. Sorry, but there is an additional problem. I mean, the funding story is not a problem, but I think we have to understand it correctly, that the war was a consequence of that particular context. And what does it turn to about Islam? To me, is the theology, the faith, the practice, and the worship that was brought by Islam. But there was an additional problem. After Prophet Muhammad passed away, Muslims had an army in a state, and they kept continuing. I continuing, they kept conquering the world and from in one century from Spain to India, basically Muslims built an empire. And this empire itself partly transformed Islamic teaching and adjusted it to its imperial needs. And I think that's something we Muslims should see today. One clear example of this is the theory of abrogation.

Because the jurists who were with the Imperial project, they looked at the Quran and they saw that, well, there are verses in the Quran which says, you're just a preacher, not a compiler. Well, but we're having a war here, right? I mean, to you, you're religion to me mind, but we are not allowing the polities to have this. So what they did was they took the verses about war and fighting the unbelievers, the polities in particular, but also Jews and Christians, because there was a word about the people of the book. They took those

verses as definitive, which abrogated the earlier verses. So a lot of the verses you will open and read the Quran today, which are tolerant, peaceful, you know, lenient. If you read medieval jurisprudence, you will find notes that the verses there in the Quran, but it's abrogated. Like it doesn't have a function. It doesn't rule. It doesn't have a hookum. Which to me is a huge problem when you're dealing with a text is complicated as the Quran, or let's say the Bible, where taken singly, there are certainly passages that contradict one another. And so then, well, then you are tempted by the desire to justify your own unquestioned beliefs because of your demand for power using reference to God. And then it's a worse problem than that too, because

well, who's right in their interpretation, you know, and the way out of that in some sense is to approach a book like that with as much admission of your own ignorance and as much humility as possible so that, I mean, if you assume that such thing is reasonable given that we're all people of the book and pray to God in some sense that you don't bend that to your own unacknowledged malevolence and ignorance. But that's a very, very difficult thing to manage. And it isn't even clear when you manage it, which is why we need to talk to each other in part. And exactly. And I see this abrogation theory and the theory of jihad and conquest and coercion

built around that, which is right, honestly, right there in the Islamic jurisprudence in medieval interpretations of Lasharia, as Islam interpreted for the age of empires. I mean, it was how empires were behaving at the time. Christians were doing the same things too. I mean, Byzantine Empire was also expanding through war. They had anti-paganism laws. Little discursion was the norm of today. Islam was born in such a world and it took a imperial form and jurisprudence. But to me, it was not a divine blueprint that we Muslims should preserve forever. It was a different context and we live in a different world today. So that's why we have to reinterpret.

And to me, the abrogated verses of the Quran are the eternal messages of Islam. Those abrogated verses which says to you you, you're religion, to me, mine, and the public religion. Okay, so why would you, okay, so let me play devil's advocate here. I mean, you're making a judgment there, and it's a non-tervial judgment, and you could say also that it's an unbelievably

presumptuous judgment. And this is not an insult at all. This is independent of whether or not I agree with you, but we run right into this thorny problem, right? Which is, well, why on what grounds do you think you're justified in making the claim that your interpretation should supersede that particular interpretation?

Very good question. First of all, I begin with showing that, I begin by showing that the existing interpretation, the imperial interpretation, let's say which relied on expensive jihad, coercion, suppression of heresy, apostasy laws, blasphemy laws, there's no part of that. By showing that this was not a inevitable interpretation,

it was an interpretation based on imperial conditions. And I showed that people who dissented against those two. I mean, in my book in real-pony Muslimize, I said, well, this became the mainstream view, but wait, wait, there was a scholar who was actually arguing against that. There was a scholar who was saying, no, we don't need abrogation.

We just need to understand it as one big story with different emphasis. There were, and I show how these were cynically used by Muslim rulers sometimes to just get rid of dissent. I mean, some Muslims early critics of the Umayyad dynasty, which was mostly a tyrannical dynasty that dominated the Islamic world. They were killed as blasphemers or apostates,

but they were only critics of the rulers. So, this was, you let me ask you, let me ask you another question. So, you've spent a lot of time on this. You've written many books and you've put yourself in some danger, I would say. And, and this has been quite successful. And so, I want to know what you're up to. You know what I mean? It's like, you're, you're aiming at something with all these books, and maybe you don't even fully know what it is, because you realize these things as you write, and as you struggle.

And so I would say, for a book like the Bible, like there's a way that you have to approach it, I believe that what would you say, so that you're the least likely to deceive yourself about what you're doing? And that has to be something like I think it has to be something like an orientation towards love and Love is something like the desire that the most possible good happens to the most possible people I don't mean to be utilitarian about it I'm not making that kind of case

But it even extends to your enemies because well, wouldn't it be better if they didn't have such miserable lives and wouldn't be better if you didn't have enemies? And so you have to approach a traditional text in the spirit that the text fundamentally embodies or you bend it to your own will. Now, what are you aiming out with all your books? What is it that you want? That's a good question. What are you aiming at with all your books? What is it that you want? That's a good question. Well, what do I want?

I want to make, as a just a ordinary but thinking Muslim, I want to make a contribution to the future of my religion in this day and age, where I see great value in Islam. I think Islam can contribute to the world in many ways, but I also see Islam being still captured by some medieval interpretations that were actually using, was used and built up for medieval imperial projects. And I believe we need to rethink certain issues in Islam. And there are a lot of scholars doing this.

I mean, that's why I speak of the 19th century Islamic modernism. I mean, I learned from these scholars, from Fazdor Rahman to Muhammad Abdul to Ottoman liberals and today some contemporary scholars that I quoted in my book as well. But scholars write in academic articles. So I or very complicated books. I try to popularize these ideas because I see there's hunger for that. I mean, there are a lot of Muslims around the world today from Pakistan to Malaysia to Indonesia to the Arab world, who are faithful, who are happy with their religion, but they are disturbed sometimes disgusted by the things they see in the name of their religion, oppression, violence, persecution of innocent people by calling them heretics and so on and so forth. And they want to see a way forward. How can we go forward by preserving our faith, living our values, but also being at peace with non-Muslims and even Muslims of different persuasion? And we can have attitude. So do you see that what is perturbing them is the manifestation of that central totalitarian spirit? It is. Totalitarian or just sometimes bigger than hateful. I mean, to be totalitarian, it has

to be unified with power, but it is potentially totalitarian. So yeah, well, there's the psychological equivalence cycle. Exactly. Exactly. And I also see that this is make this is also leading to a great the sententment for Islam as well. I mean, a lot of people are not in the West thinking about that. They think, Muslim world everywhere is pious, but quite the contrary, there's a great, the same chentiment with Islam as well. I mean, a lot of people are not in the West thinking about that. They think, uh, Muslim world everywhere is pious, but quite the contrary, there's a great escape from Islam in Iran. I mean, Iran today is the number one country in the world that produces ex-Muslims, like, uh, people who become atheists and Christians, and I respect their point of view. I mean, they have all the right to become atheists or Christians. But as a Muslim who believes in my faith, I mean, like, all the right to become atheists or Christians. But as a Muslim who believes in my faith,

I mean, like I would like to have a faith that attracts people with its spirituality and with its values, but not frightens them and scares them and pushes them away. In Turkey, my country, there is a new tide of deism, which is like young people are believing in God, but not any religion and certainly not Islam, precisely because of the disenchantment of Islam being used for authoritarian politics by the current government, for example.

So I think this is a critical period in Islam, and when I look back at the Christianist I see people, Christian humanists from Locke to others, Roger Williams in the United States, who re-articulated their religion, reinterpreted their religion to emphasize freedom, freedom of conscience. Like, I mean, the switch from the wine rights of kings to the idea of a limited government with religious freedom, that was a big shift in Christianity. And it had to be done by Christians who value their fate.

And I think this is a big effort. A lot of Muslims are trying. I'm just trying to do my part with my writings, which are aimed at a broad understanding, with a broad population. So everybody can read and get it, you know, what the point is, but also here are the key arguments and the, you know, patterns for going forward.

Yeah, well, you're a strange sort of traditionalist in some sense, right? Because you are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff in relationship to the past, but also not proposing that all of this be abandoned as an entirely failed project, which I think is a very naive would be a very naive thing to do in any case. It's like, well, abandoned it in favor of what exactly. Well, you know, rationality, it's well, okay, but it needs some fleshing out. But not by rationality, I mean, we can't discuss that because my book, Reopening Muslim Minds,

a Return to Reason, begins with that reason of freedom. I'm not a rationalist in the sense of, people like Sam Harris that you talk to, so I don't think that there's reason that supersedes everything else. And by rationally, we can always arrive at truth. I mean, Mao rationally arrived at a terrible truth. So I certainly see the problem of the axiomatic perception.

Yeah, I mean, I exercise as rationalists that build systems of authoritarianism. And I think there was a great value there. However, by reason, I refer to a specific theological branch in Islam called rational theology or accol, that's the term in Arabic reason. And it goes back to a theological dispute in early Islam between two schools of thought.

And it was on the meaning of Sharia, I mean God's commandments. And actually, it goes back to this was a discussion in Islam, but it goes back to Socrates and his famous uterfor of dilemma. And I think this was discussed in Christianity as well. The dilemma is this, when God has commandments like 10 commandments like Dao Shailat, murder, right? Dao Shailnacht still. These are fundamental key values that our civilizations go forward. But one question is this,

does God say Dao Shailnacht murder because murder is inherently wrong? Does God teach us about this ethical value? It's out there in the world. Or does murder become wrong simply because God sets up? So these two ways of looking into rules, commandments. And in Islam, one theology is spearheaded by the Mutezilah school, but also it had an impact on the Mahturidi theology, which is in mainstream Sunni Islam, which I sympathize with.

They said, the commandments of God are educating us about values, which are also there inherently out there in the world, and also knowable by reason. In other words, even if there was no revelation, human could figure out that theft or murder are wrong, but because of human passions and human tendency to forget, God is educating and reminding us about those values. And there are a lot of reasons in the Quran to think like that. The other school, the Asha,

right, said, no, these things are right and wrong simply because God said so. Therefore, if God said murder is good, murder would be good. So the commandments define everything that is ethical. And this is the Ashrat theology. And in my book, I show how these discussions took place and what were the nuances. Ashrat theology became more influential in Sunni Islam. And I'm critical of that, because I think he say, uh, God's commandments only have

value in themselves. First of all, we are turning God into a capricious, arbitrary, legislator, right? Things become right and wrong only because he says so there are not, it's not like like he is looking into the world and seeing and with compassion, seeing that ordinary people in some people should not die. Yeah, well, you could secularize that. You could secularize that argument by asking yourself as a secular person.

These fundamental laws that we have, like we should not murder, do they reflect some underlying reality in some profound sense, or are they arbitrary constructions of a particular time and place. And it's a very difficult argument to walk through because it always depends in some sense

on what you're aiming at. If you're aiming at power and conquest, well, then maybe murder's just what you need. But if you're aiming at peace, well, maybe that's not the right route. Exactly. And actually, I mean, the secular way of looking at this is that, for example, should governments legislate,

according to what they think is right, and their commandment, their laws define everything, or should there be values beyond the governments that they should honor, right? Right. Well, that's a natural right argument, in some sense, right? Which is really foundational in the West, and less so in the French system, I would say. Very very and very common law system. Very true. Which that's why I believe the right view in Islam was the

natural right argument, which what the Mutezilah said and the Mahtridis also in the Sunni tradition pretty much came close. The other one is called divine positivism. Like God says whatever He says, and we just obey it without asking why and how. I mean, if God more sophisticated over time, still, I mean, the Ashrat scholars look into the purposes of God, try to figure out, so that a lot, a knowledgey.

But ultimately, this divine command theory that God posits as He wills, legislates as he wills, and this had two consequences. One is One means that people who don't have your religious tradition cannot have any value because all value comes from divine commandment. So people who are secular people who are beyond. So yeah, right. You close yourself to the ethical reality out there in the world, all the ethical traditions and reasoning. Second, you deny an essential commonality between the tribes of mankind by doing so. Exactly. And you put yourself in a permanent state of war. Exactly.

That's why I call it the loss of universalism because I mean, early Muslims studied Aristotle and his ethical philosophy because Aristotle is an inferior hell from an Islamic point of view, but they saw value because they said God gave humanity an ethical intuition and reason and reason is universal that allowed them. So that was the universalistic path, but the other path actually closed ethical thinking. That's why after that first thing is- Well, you can also see how it would foster a kind of totalitarianism because if God's commandments are what defined good and evil, but I'm interpreting them. Exactly. Then there isn't anything beyond my interpretation, in some sense, as long as I'm

correct. Whereas with the more universalist view, it's like, well, wait a second, there's something outside of this that I'm not intelligent enough, wise enough to understand that I have to be mindful of. So let me take it in that direction for a sec. So I'll tell you something I've been thinking about. I'm writing this book now called We Who Ressel with God. And I'm really trying to work out the natural right issue in relationship to free speech. And I'm trying to do that as a clinician. And so one of the things that Carl Rogers proposed,

and he was extraordinarily influenced by Protestantism, he was a seminarian, he wanted to be an evangelist before he became a secular humanist. But Rogers observed that if you listen to people talk, you actually listened, that they would spontaneously transform themselves in a way that improved their life. And he pointed to a fundamental psychological mechanism that was driving that. And you could think about it in some sense, as exactly the same thing that a parent does when that parent attends very carefully to their children.

So that attention facilitates, well, I would say in some sense, the manifestation of the healing word. And I mean that as a clinician, now, Freud Rogers took a page from Freud, because Freud also observed that if you just let people talk, but you listen, that they would unwind themselves and straighten themselves out. And this isn't such a preposterous suggestion unless you believe that speech is somehow divorced

from neurological integrity, let's say, or social integrity. And so I think there's a very real sense in which the reason that free speech is a natural right, and maybe the highest of natural rights is because it is precisely reflective of the mechanism by which we move from the stagnation of our dead thoughts into a future that's what better than the dead past and so any society that interferes with that will degenerate into a kind of totalitarian absolutism and that becomes indistinguishable from hell. It does. I mean, very interesting. What you said reminds me of a Quranic verse. It defines believers as those people who listen to the word and follow the most beautiful of that.

To be able to do that, you have to listen first and you have to be able to choose that. Exactly. It's a verse in the Quran, and I can't remember the number now, but I can send you later the number of it. But that's a great verse. That's a great idea, because it also touches on the notion of a profound intuition of beauty,

and the idea that beauty is an intimation of what is divine, and divine is deep and profound and necessary. And I don't care if you speak about that in secular religious terms. It boils down to the same thing in the final analysis. And to use, I talked with one of Canada's great journalists recently, this man named Rex Murphy,

who's a real national treasure. And he's so poetic and he's a deep admirer of poetry, but also a very practical and down-to-earth person. But his words are beautiful, and part of the reason they have such forces is because he is in communion with that beauty, and it shines through everything he does. And so these are non-trivial realities that are being pointed to. We ignore them at our peril. Exactly.

And that is a universalistic outlook to listen to and learn from everything. And it was there, right, at the beginning of the Islamic civilization. And that's why Muslims built the house of wisdom and bagged that and translated all Greek philosophy into Arabic, which ultimately made its way to Europe through Spain, Muslim Spain.

So there was this hunger to learn and appreciate, but that gradually narrowed down. And it's a fact that it has down, it has happened. Why it happened, how it happened, there are a lot of theories about it. So people, it happens all the time. It happens all the time. It's a human existential reality for that to happen.

I think it will happen to any civilization at the moment they say we have reached perfection, we don't need to learn anything from the outside world. And I see that sort of trend in the Western civilization. That's the tower of Babel. That's the tower of Babel, right? Yeah. You build a structure and you think it's reached the heights of God. And as soon as you think that everyone fragments and speaks a different language and everything descends and then the next story is the flood and that's not a bloody accident. That's not an exaggeration.

Exactly. By reason, I am referring to this view, universalistic view in early Islam, which believe that morality in the last few years, the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the

most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the is right and wrong. So if the Sharia constitutes it, you don't have to go visit me. My interpretation of the Quran is what defines, well, you can't have that statement without that implicit belief behind it. That's the problem with that kind of idea. It's like, well, it contains the absolute truth. Well, through whose lens? Well, mine. Well, that's pretty damn convenient for you, isn't it? Yeah yeah exactly and and of course thinking like that had political advantages and actually that's an argument I made in the book

and but that narrowed Islamic thinking did also led to literalism I mean blind literalism because if you don't have except values outside of the written text you ultimately become less willing to interpret the text and more away a little bit from the text because you're bound with it too much. And that is, that literalism is a burning problem, I think, in Islamic jurisprudence today. I mean, a lot of the issues about women's rights and the Muslim world come from a little bit of the... But it's also a terrible technical problem, right, which the postmodernists grappled with in which in some sense defeated them. It's because when you read a book, you say, well, where is the truth?

Is it in a single word or is it in a phrase? But the phrase is in a sentence, and the sentence changes the phrase, and then the sentence is in a paragraph, and then there's a really interesting image online showing the hyperlink nature of the Bible, which verse is referty, which other, it looks like a rainbow. The Bible is densely hyperlink nature of the Bible, which verses refer to each other. It looks like a rainbow.

The Bible is densely hyperlinked because all of it refers to, it all refers to other parts of itself, which is part of its depth. But what that means is that while you need the whole thing to interpret each word, you need every paragraph to interpret each sentence, and so how do you know if your interpretation is correct? Well, we believe what the sentence says. It's like, nope. Sorry, that's just not gonna do. And what do you mean by literally true? Exactly. And are you so sure that literal truth is the most, is the deepest form of truth? Because I don't think it is. There's fictional truth. And that's deeper than literal truth, obviously.

There's certainty and we have that in Islam, the interpretation of the Quran by the Quran. So you read Surah 2, something, and you read 57, something else, and they actually explain each other. That's a very powerful approach. By literally, I mean, I can give you one example of women's rights, for example, like, which is, of course, a burning issue in certain parts of not all, but certain parts of the Muslim world today. You may have heard that Saudi authorities didn't allow women to drive cars for a long time.

And finally, when it was allowed, it was a big reform. And the autocratic prince who did that, got a lot of brownie points in the West, although. It was probably a bigger reform that was even recognized. It was, it was nothing more than, but the people who demanded were jailed. So it's a veered autocratic form of reform.

But then in now Pakistan, I mean, not Afghans, sorry, in Afghanistan, the Taliban came to power. In the 90s, they were not allowing women to even walk on the street, but now they will say we will allow that. Okay, that's a progress for Taliban, but still, woman will not be able to travel alone. So there is this issue of woman traveling alone

with a male guardian. I mean, it will come up in all these Islamic issues, I mean, to conserve it, of Islamic interpretations. Now, where does it come from? Well, it comes from a few Hadiths that are saying reported from Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. And it's in Sahih Buhari, one of the most authoritative, the most authoritative, I think,

collection of Hadith sources, although I would still have some questions there on certain texts. But anyway, there you read Prophet Muhammad saying a woman, a Muslim woman, should not travel alone without a mahram, that's a male guardian, for longer than a distance of three days. Another version is a distance of one day. So that's the text and classical scholars, you know, of course they thought if it was important,

they calculated actually what's the difference of three days? Oh, 78 miles or 57 miles, there are different versions of that. So women should not be able to go. And still today, like in the UK, if you ask a fatwa from a consort of scholars, they can say, can a woman go between Birmingham and London? They can measure the distance.

They say, no, no, it's not more than that distance. Well, that is the textualist reading of this. Now, another reading, which is promoted by Turkish scholars and others, I'm sure, is that, that well Prophet Muhammad said so probably because in the seventh century Arabia in the desert between Mecca and Medina there were bandits attacking every unprotected woman. So a woman walking alone without a male guardian and woman didn't carry swords by this. I mean only men could protect women would be attacked by these people. I mean, only men could protect women. Would be attacked by these people. So he said something obviously related to that context.

So he's secure, he's issue a security. So securities are universal value we should care about. But if you today worry about the security of a woman driving between Mecca and Medina, and make sure she wears a seatbelt, right? It's a different thing. It's a thing. Or in the West. The right of different, in the West, or in the West.

The right of a woman to walk on a company, which is obviously a right that should not be trampled, is dependent to no small degree on the fact that she can do so in relative safety. And that's forgotten in some sense, right? I mean, I'm not saying that that right shouldn't be promoted or doesn't exist. I'm saying that the conditions that currently prevail

in the West, I mean, when I lived in Montreal, for example, anyone pretty much could go anywhere at any time of day and be safe. Well, that's a hell of an accomplishment that that's the case. And that is not the historical norm by any stretch of the imagination. So that's for sure.

I mean, these religious commitments, even the Quran and Prophet Muhammad's commitments, as almost in my value, I respect all of them, but I understand that they were issued in a certain context. They were given, they were authored in a certain context. And when you understand the intention behind that, you begin to understand the Sharia more intention-based, called Makkahsid in Islamic tradition. intention-based, called Makasset in Islamic

tradition. So that's one way of going forward in Islamic tradition that scholars are thinking. And I understand like corporal punishments. I mean, that's one of the issues that come up very much with Islam. I mean, why, you know, why are there corporal punishments in the Quran and in the Prophet's commandments? Well, why are they in the Old Testament, right? I mean, all these texts, you have corporal punishments. Yes, and I, for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, was a market improvement over the previous arrangement. Exactly. And the Quran says, there is life for you in Qasas, which is retaliation, because before the Quran, Arabs were killing each other in thrones and tribes were fighting each

other. And by the way, there was no individual responsibility. So anybody from the other tribe would be given, you know, as a retaliation. So but the Quran brought the idea of retaliation with individual responsibility. And also it brought a few corporal punishments like amputation of hands for theft, for example, which is one of the most controversial issues I think about Islamic law in the world today. Now, one that literally is way to understand it is that, well, God says this, so you will implement it as the way it is, or you know, you will find some modifications around it. But another way of looking at it is, well, there's a very good reason why I gave Corporal Punishment in 7th century, early 7th century Arabia, because there were no prisons.

corporal punishments in seven century early seven century Arabia because there were no prisons. I mean, prison is an institution that is built by a state and you need to build brick walls and you need to feed somebody inside it. You need to have a guard. I mean, seven century early seven century Mecca and Medina were anything like that. People people could only punish crime instantly or let them go. I mean, there was no idea. And that's why pre Islamic Arabs all amputated kill them or kill them or kill them and, there was no idea. And that's why pre-Islamic Arabs all killed them, killed them, killed them, killed them, and risk a feud. Exactly. And that's why pre-Islamic Arabs were also empathetic hands for theft. So the Quran legislated in that context. And as almost though I believe it legislated for justice, it legislated for the right moral purposes. But today, we can punish theft with other means, such as, you know,

the present sentences or fines, which the Ottomans already did. I mean, these modifications have already taken place to a certain extent in the Muslim world. I'm saying these things because I mean, this kind of literalist understanding of Islamic thanks a lot to a lot of problems. We can't let the literalists get away with the notion

that their understanding of a sentence is right. That just isn't how a text works. Way more complicated than that. And that's a big problem because it opens up this vector of infinite interpretations, which is the postmodernist dilemma. But saying the text has no meaning or any meaning is no solution to that. It's like saying life has any meaning or no meaning. It's a problem, especially when they say their understanding is right, and they have the right to dominate the state, and they have to impose that on everybody else. That's the key problem we have in the Islamist movements. Let's talk about Mary for a minute. Oh, yeah, sure.

Yeah, well, because this issue, well, this issue of women's rights is definitely worth touching on. Now, so, so why do you think Mary is represented? So, what would you say? Why does she have this privileged representation in the Quran? And what does that mean as far as you've been able to determine? Well, very good question, very interesting. I should also add that the most prominent figure in the whole Quran, the most prominent human being is Moses, you know, followed by probably Mary and

Abraham and then come Jesus Christ, you know, he's also of course, and narrated. Because the Quran is educating Prophet Muhammad about his predecessors. These were the pious people before you. These are the people you're forbearers. You should follow the footsteps of Moses. You should be like Jesus. And Mary is narrated because he's so high up and revert in this Islamic tradition. She's praised for her chastity

and she's praised for being brave because the fact that I mean, she was of course, accused for committing adultery. I mean, that's what the Quran says because she had a child without a father. And we hear that actually, we see that in the Quran and she goes, and the Quranic birth story is different than the gospels. In the gospels, Mary gives birth in Bethlehem and a stable and that's the

Christian imagery. The Quranic story is different. She goes and gives birth in the wilderness out of nowhere and under a palm tree because she's afraid that you know, people will blame her and people do blame her after that. And then under this Palm Tree, she gives birth to Jesus and she's afraid, but God comforts her and angels speak to her. Now, I think the story there, the archetype there, is a woman who will be unjustly blamed for committing adultery already she didn't do.

And that's a deem that comes up also in the Quran for another woman who's not named but we know it's Aisha, Prophet Muhammad's wife. In the 24th chapter of the Quran, Prophet Muhammad's wife, I mean, that's we know from post-carning sources, but she was left alone in the desert and men had given her a ride with her with a camel when she came back to the city. There was a rumor that maybe something happened between them and Prophet Muhammad was devastated, Ayesha was devastated. It was a very stressful moment. And then the Quran legislated about that, condemned the lie and the libels and said, if you will bring any accusation against a woman of adultery, you should bring four witnesses before you blame her. And of course, there was no witness in this case.

So these two stories, I'm reading them together, like it's about protecting woman from accusation of adultery, which was of course the worst thing you could do to a woman, especially in the pre-modern era, even today, I think, in many societies. So Mary's highlighted in that says, which is very interesting. By the way, it's interesting though and said that the Quranic injunction to protect woman by asking for four witnesses was misabused in Pakistan to actually abuse woman. I mean, it was used because when you don't understand the intention, this is what happens. There has been cases in Pakistan of a woman being raped, raped in a village, getting pregnant. And she goes to,

she's taken to a Sharia court in the rural areas. And they ask, where are your four witnesses? She says, I don't have four witnesses, but the fact that she's pregnant proves that she committed adultery, although she's raped. And there has been a few cases like that who were given the death penalty by the court, although it was later overturned

likely by the Constitution court. So I'm just saying this too, if you don't understand what guy, what God legislated with what intention and if you blindly bring a law into another different context without understanding the difference between rape and adultery also, it can't have disastrous consequences. But sorry, we digress. So Mary is highly praised. Some of the things said in the Quran about Mary, you cannot find them in the gospels. But you can find them somewhere else. You can find them in the in the gospel of James, which is an apocryphal gospel,

protevangelium of James, because there were these Eastern gospels which told about the childhood of Mary and childhood of Jesus, which are not in the New Testament. Yeah, Gynostic or other ones. And so the Quran strongly resonates with that. And I think one reason. How do you account for that historically? I mean, was there an influence of James mode of thinking on Muhammad or what do you think's happening there?

Well, I wrote a book. I know you did. I know he does, yes, no, it's a great question. I appreciate it? Well, I wrote a book. I know you did. I know you did. It's a great question. I appreciate it. Well, how do I account that? I mean, Islam certainly continues Judeo-Christian traditions

and very strongly resonates by a little known Christian strain known as Jewish Christianity, I mean, which comes from, which considered James as their saint, you know, patron saint. Jewish Christians, which we know from the church fathers called Eddie onites, people called on Nazareans, they were practicing Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah, but as the Jewish Messiah, not in the Holy Christian sense of the term, not divine, but as Jews expect

the Messiah today. So there were practicing Jews who accepted Jesus, which made them unorthodox from both a Jewish point of view and also a mainstream Christian point of view. Not the wisest political move, maybe. Yeah. So that's why I mean, there were squeezed in, we hear them as heresies in church fathers writings and this they disappeared after four century. But what is striking is that the The Jesus defined by the Quran is very similar to what the Jewish Christians believed and

Also the theology of Quran is very similar to this idea that you're saved by act not just faith alone, which is you know a online Yeah, and I think it's more on a Jewish path, but it appreciates Jesus from a more Jewish perspective. And it is very similar. Now, there are two ways to understand this. One is to say, well, some of these teachings made their way to Arabia.

And obviously, influenced the birth of Islam and Prophet Muhammad might have acquired these teachings from these Christian unorthodox groups. That's the historical interpretation and I can understand how people think like that. As the Muslim, I believe, well, this is a revelation. I mean, God sent that revelation, God sent this revelation again. So I don't need to believe that Prophet Muhammad acquired that wisdom from a preexisting community, but that's an answer of faith. Others can, I can very easily understand that they can say these Christian teachings influence the birth of Islam.

But whatever path we take, even if we believe that there's revelation, or even if we believe that there's a history, the point is, our religious traditions are deeply connected. And they are not alien. And there's not a Judeo-Christian tradition, but Judeo-Christian Islamic tradition, as I said. And the moment we begin to connect them,

we can learn from each other. I think Muslims can learn from Christian tradition more. And Christians can learn certain things from the Islamic tradition today. And we can think of our problems as we demonetists. We have these issues and how do we deal with them in the modern world. That's why I find inter-Christian discussions

about freedom or freedom of conscience or secular state very interesting. And I think we have patterns and roots in Islam which can be connected to those. Okay, I wanna torture you with one more issue and then we should probably stop because I'm getting, I'm getting worn out listening and talking. So I would stop making sense. No, it's per, it's a good, it's not a bad thing.

It's a good thing. So I mentioned earlier this idea that Rogers developed that was deeply influenced by his Protestantism and that had also been observed by Freud in the psychoanalysts that merely letting people speak, but in a welcoming way, right? In an attentive way, so you're providing a container for the revelation, let's say, the revelation of themselves to themselves,

that that was intrinsically deeply healing. And one of the things that Jung pointed out, which I thought was staggering in its implications, was that the mythological or theological Christ was actually a symbolic representation of that process. Yes, so it's quite, so imagine there's a historical figure, but there's a, there's a psychological figure. That's how I would look at it. But a the, you can think about it in theological terms at all. This gets complicated when you get into the outer reaches of thought. But then, so what I see happening was that the West organized itself, unbeknownst to itself, to some degree, under this principle, that free discourse accompanied by attentive listening, which is something like care for the other person's self-revelation and belief that that will make the world a better place in the highest sense.

And it's sort of the sine qua non of successful therapy in my estimation. Well, that's both embodied and symbolized by the figure of Christ. And you can see that as a reflection of human universalism as well. That's both embodied and symbolized by the figure of Christ. And you can see that as a reflection of human universalism as well. He happens to be the figure in the West when you're speaking psychologically, but it's representing something that's a lot more like John's notion of the eternal word. And something that the Egyptians tried to represent

with the figure of Horus and the Mesopotamians with the figure of Marduk and so forth. And it's sort of at the basis of the Campbell Jung idea of a universal archetypal redemption story. And so what I struggle with is in the Islam world, you have this contradiction in some sense from my perspective as a Westerner between the figure of Muhammad as in some sense from my perspective as a westerner, between the figure of Muhammad, as in some ways the ultimate authority or guide or profit, and the figure of Christ.

And I can't understand it psychologically. It's like, because I can't distinguish between the honor given Christ in Islam and the honor given Muhammad. There's a contradiction there that I can't think my way through. Well great question. I think there is no contradiction from an Islamic point of view because Islam sees this as one big history of monotheism. So Prophet Muhammad is following the footsteps of Moses or Abraham or Isaac or Jacob or Noah and Christ is put in that path. So that's why Christ isn't divine, but he is a word from God, he's revelation. So he's

actually metaphysically speaking, the statements about Jesus put some about any other actually creature besides the angels when you look at from a chronic point of view. But the Quran still insists that he's not divine. And there is no polyan theology of him, you know, being dying for the sins of humanity. So there's not that. So that's why the crisis brought to the broader Abrahamic story, which doesn't culminate only with Christ, but continues with with Muhammad. So that's why I mean, Islam takes the lower Christology, I mean, if you were from a,

so that's why I think it makes sense. Although I think enough attention maybe has not been given an Islamic thought to the story of Christ that has narrated us in the New Testament. In early Islamic history, actually, you see that Muslims were studying the Bible called Israeliyat, I mean, the Jewish and Christian sources, because the Quran refers to them, so go and learn more from these sources. And I think that was a valuable flux of information and wisdom into Islam. Later, it was seen as, I don't know, we don't need them,

we just need our own trajectory. And so the loss of universalism was not just loss of Greek philosophy, but maybe even more so, the matrix between the Quran and Bible. That's why I'm also calling on fellow Muslims to study the New Testament and learn about the story of Christ. There are passages in the New Testament, especially Paulian letters that will not go well with Muslim theology, but we can still read and learn at least a history of Christ. And that is one, actually that's why, that's what brought me to writing an article in the New York Times a few years ago, what Jesus can teach Muslims today.

Because besides all the theological issues about his nature, that's a matter of theology. But Christ had a role in first century Judaism when Jews were in a crisis like we Muslims today. That analogy was made by Arnold Toimby. He said Muslims of the modern era are first century Jews in the sense that there is a powerful civilization, Rome that is coming onto you. And you have herodians whoodians who, you know,

ally with that, you know, become imitating of that. And you have the zealots, you know, becoming fanatic. And, and, and, and, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it he wasn't a fanatic, he wasn't a guerrilla leader fighting a battle against them. And he called on his fellow Jews to rediscover their own values. Let's look at Becar Halaka and see the intention. And his criticism of dry literalism and sometimes arrogant piety, you know, you take pride, you look down at one other people

saying that they are sinners, but I am pious. They are so relevant to some of the problems we have in the Muslim world today. take pry, you look down at one other people saying that there are sinners, but I'm pious. They are so relevant to some of the problems we have in the Muslim world today. I mean, I think that's why I mean, as a monotheist, you know, walking on the Abrahamic path and being a Muslim, alhamdulillah, as we say, I believe the broader tradition of monotheism, that's includes Moses, of course, but the story of Christ in particular, there's a lot to teach us. And Muhammad Abdul Hmeid, this point, I mean, he was a Muslim reformer in the late 19th century. And he said, actually, Muslims believe in the second coming of Christ. I mean,

it's there in it's an article of faith in Sunni Islam. He says, the second coming of Christ means we will begin to look at the Sharia as he looked at the law, look at the intentions, you know, look at the vis-the-moral vis-the-m behind that and just don't turn into a dry set of laws which just implement without, you know, thinking of the consequences. I think there is such deep wisdom there in the Christian tradition which is important for us Muslims. There are a lot of, I mean, wisdom in the Muslim tradition too, I think to share with the world. But we have to figure out some more wisdom, couldn't we? Yeah, I mean, one thing, I mean, like I see people becoming so obsessed with race in the

Western world since I came to America a few years ago. I mean, people speak about all the color skin colors off there. And I understand that there's a history behind that there's a of course persecution and discrimination. But I mean, one thing we can say proudly as Muslim is that well, we never had that Islam is a colorable and religion. And you know, who was fascinated by that? Malcolm X, he was, of course, a leader in the African-American community, he was because of the persecution and discrimination, he had also a very negative view of the white people.

But his life changed when he went to Mecca, and that's a very powerful story. And he saw Muslims with blue eyes and blonde hair and black skin and brown skin. And he said, they're all brothers and faith. They're not discriminating against each other. So he became post, you know, racial, thanks to his exposure to that universalism in Islam,

which I'm proud of as a Muslim. So I think there are great things in our traditions to share with each other, but we have to overcome the totalitarian impulse as you said, the coercive interpretations, the hateful interpretations, and there's ground to work in every tradition. And I'm trying to do my part as a Muslim living

in the 21st century, as it was concerned about the future of the world and the woman. Much appreciated. Thank you very much for talking to me. Thank you very much for talking to me. This was a great conversation. Where are you?

I'm in Washington DC right now. You're in Washington, OK? At the Cato Institute offices. Well, it would be nice to see you. I'm going to come to Washington next year. And it would be very nice to see you. Oh, in Shallah, as we say, I would love to. Let's break bread together and speak about all these great

issues, which we should all think about. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Thank you very much. you