Ep 252. - Reform or Revolution: The Future of Islam & Politics | Dr Uthman Badar
How can we reconcile seeking quicker reform with long-term ideals? Islam, demonstrated by Prophet Muhammad's life, is revolutionary, yet the challenge is embodying this approach in a world ruled by secular, often autocratic, neo-liberal systems. Dr Uthman Badar is a lecturer at Western Sydney University – he argues there is a path between compromise and idealism.
You can find Dr Uthman Badar here:
X: https://x.com/uthmanb
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7vXiAjVFnhNI3T9Gkw636a
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-thinking-muslim/id1471798762
Sign up to Muhammad Jalal's newsletter: https://jalalayn.substack.com
Transcript - This is an AI generated transcript and may not reflect the actual conversation
Introduction
0:00
What does an Islamic polity look like in the modern world in a neoliberal order? How do you
0:05
institute a rebate free economy? But sometimes in politics, in order to achieve a better end,
0:10
compromises have to be made. If you think reform is a compromise and we're going backwards, you have to at least accept that the opposite view is valid. This is the case of the prophetam
0:18
in the battle of the trench. Things are very very difficult. He is open to agreeing with
0:23
Islam intends for non-Islamic entities to pay you. Gotten about the caliphate. you forgotten about sort of the big revolutionary themes of Islam is the main source here cuz
0:34
it's a prophetic example transformative change significant fundamental change how can we reconcile seeking quicker reform with long-term ideals Islam demonstrated by prophet
0:44
Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam's life is revolutionary Dr. Uman Badr is a lecturer at
0:49
Western Sydney University he argues there is a path between compromise and idealism
1:00
Dr. Manbad, we're at the sidelines of the um atics uh conference here in Istanbul. It's wonderful to
1:06
have you with us uh once again and welcome to the thinking Muslim. It's great to be back.
1:13
was uh great to have you with us as I said and uh today we've got a really interesting topic
1:18
cuz it's a topic where I mean I sent this topic out to my team and I had so many responses from
1:25
uh from from people about how they personally find uh the discussion of revolution and reform
1:33
a difficult and tricky one because it anyone in that Islamic space in the activism space has had
Reform vs Revolution
1:41
to grapple with you how much should we uh engage with revolutionary you know more idealistic forces
1:48
and impulses that come from Islam uh but at the same time balance that out with uh more tangible
1:55
material gains that may be more short-term sort of reformist sort of elements or or gains that
2:02
uh that we have to juggle uh when inevitably engaging with activism activism and I I've had
2:08
to do this I mean last year uh in the UK we had elections And a lot of people uh said to me, well,
2:15
you're uh you're accepting the system by engaging the system. Um compromising, you're compromising.
2:23
You know, you're um you've lost your ideals. You've forgotten about the caliphate. You've forgotten about sort of the big revolutionary themes of Islam. So there's a lot going on in my
2:34
mind in the minds of of my team and I suspect in the minds of of you know uh ordinary Muslims who
2:40
are trying to really make their way in this space. Um so let let's start with um with the idea with
2:47
the with the idea of reform and revolution. these sort of two big ideas like just set out the stall
2:54
uh uh what what's the basic argument here for those uninitiated who may uh may think this is a
3:01
bit of a murial type of conversation. Yeah. Yeah. No, thank you. That's a very good introduction. It is a tricky topic. It is a it requires careful consideration at the same time. I think it's very
3:12
important and I think it's very underdeveloped. Right. This is why people find it tricky, difficult. It's underdeveloped. Um, in fact, part of what we're going to talk about, inshallah,
3:22
is is the experiences of others who have tried who want to also try and push back against the
3:27
prevailing order and particularly the socialist experience over the 20th century. Yeah. And one of the things that's happened there is is something called the return to strategy, right? It's a
3:36
question it's it's a question of strategy. What are we doing? What have we've learned from the past? But yeah, I think it's important to maybe first set the scene. Yeah. um and to really show
3:44
the practical relevance of this be and so it's not just an academic kind of discourse. Um for me the
3:52
context is very relevant. In fact there are recent examples that show this is very very relevant and
3:57
practical. But the broader context for me is the attempts in the 20th century and the 19th century
4:03
of Muslims and the um at large to revive. uh the um found herself in a particular spot and there
4:10
have been numerous efforts to try and uh revive the um to restore her place and so on and so forth
4:16
and all these efforts are good any good efforts any Islamic efforts are needed and they're good
4:21
um at the same time have I think this topic applies to a certain set maybe not all of them we do have um I mean again even spiritual efforts intellectual efforts efforts to bring people back
4:34
to the mosque are all important in a general sense However, I think when we talk about socopolitical
4:39
change, there is a a an element of what I would call depoliticization that some efforts engage in
4:48
um both in terms of their diagnosis and their prescription. So, what that means is, you know, some people will be want to say that the problems in Gaza or the you know, if there's a war in Iraq
4:58
or Afghanistan, it's because people aren't praying or coming to f. Okay, I can understand that that
5:04
inclination, but that's a type of depoliticizing argument that is neither he nor there. So, we're not talking about them. So, we're not talking about them. I don't want to kind of say
5:12
that that's not what we're talking about. People who actually engage with material conditions with society, that's what we're talking about. And when we come to this subset of Muslim efforts,
5:21
this is where there is a strong kind of tension between people who are more inclined towards
5:26
reform and gradual incremental change and others who are a lot more about the ideals and
5:32
the principles and like you got to do this way and you can't compromise and so on and so forth. Yeah, that's the kind of back of the envelope conceptual uh background or context. But we can make this
5:44
more practical what's happening now in Syria. Yeah. Uh there's a very hot debate in Muslim
5:50
social media uh with a with with again a whole group of very sincere Muslims saying that Jaan
5:57
is compromised or Ahmed has compromised he's doing this he's doing that. What's the point of the He's betraying the revolution, right? What's the point of a revolution that says
6:04
Islam Islam and the wants Islam and then you come in and you just lean into the world order and but
6:12
there's and then there's a whole another group of Muslims that I find myself in more inclined to who are saying well I love those ideas we all want them but what do you want him to do right
6:23
now space? Yeah. In fact, there was a really good recent article published by Mu uh by Muhammad Bush
6:31
uh titled that is the new Syrian straight really revolutionary which I think is an excellent account. It's not making an argument one way or the other but it's an excellent account that kind
6:39
of saying we need to pay a lot more attention to the structures this is not about Syria any state building effort in the late modern world has to deal with the power of capital has to
6:48
deal with the power of the neoliberal order and so on and so forth. So that's a very very
6:53
uh relevant discussion as as um there there are other examples. So I think that's the context
7:00
um that's important to keep in mind and of course we can we can look at the argument but that's the broad that's the broad two sides. Yeah. And in a sense it's a kind of clash of moral ideals and
7:10
pragmatic realities right and how do you navigate these two? Um so I think that's the context but we
7:17
can unpack this more and set up the um the sort of Islamic positions the normative positions
Reform vs Idealistic
7:24
of both sides. So the reformist side would have an argument um and the the more idealistic side
7:32
will have an argument. Just sort of set that up very briefly for me please. Yeah. Okay. So yes I
7:38
think so this topic has both normative sources for us Islamic Quran. Yeah. And then he has we
7:44
can also learn from certain practical empirical examples that we can come to later on as well. Right? Um normatively speaking of course the s is the main source here because it's a prophetic
7:54
example sallallahu alaihi wasallam and clearly in the prophetic example there is revolutionary
8:02
or radical elements. So I should say when I say revolution radical I'm talking about like transformative change significant fundamental change and that's important because a lot of times
8:11
revolution gets attached to violence necessarily that's not necessarily the case we can talk about
8:16
that um these are structural changes like basic transformative change in society so like for you
8:24
know moving from capitalism to socialism right or the other way around or moving from uh um you know
8:31
capitalism to Islam or fromah to Islam in the case of the prophet as opposed to kind of smoothing the
8:40
rougher edges of a particular system. So you're still within capitalism but you've got some more
8:45
socialist elements or some more Islamic elements that's a more kind of reformist if you are
8:50
reformist in your ends. Yeah. Right. Which I think that that is not something that Muslims should
8:57
um adopt. I don't that I think that's something we can be clearer about. Where there is a more
9:02
of a controversial and um complex debate is whether reform can be a means to uh more radical
9:12
revolutionary ends. So in the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam's example clearly there are revolutionary elements uh and the ends are the clearest ones. So what he establishes in Medina
9:22
uh is significant structural change economically, intellectually the discourse, the politics
9:28
compared to the Jahi system. And not only that, even in some of the means you know for example
9:34
um the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam does not enter is the kind of parliament the the the
9:41
political that's where they make their decisions. Keshi doesn't really take that kind of let me go inside and uh you know slowly slowly try and um get get decisions that are favorable kind of he
9:53
doesn't do that he kind of stays outside that and there are a number of others on the other hand
10:00
uh he is pragmatic in in in a number of respects at the same time which and this informs the other
10:05
side of the argument so uh there's a lot more of this in Medina Hudabia is the very major
10:11
example that uh re scholars um and activists more on the reformer side would like to use
10:18
uh and it is a pragmatic compromise you've gone to do the other side said no you haven't stood
10:26
your ground and said no we're going to do it come what may you've said okay let's agree to a priest treaty and a lot of the terms of the treaty are are not in your favor on the apparent some of them
10:36
are humiliating and this is why the sahaba react as they do so that that whole thing's there and
10:42
in fact Some of the particular um some of the particular terms of the treaty even go against
10:49
the default Islamic position particularly the ones where like if Muslims come you have to send them back to the sending a Muslim back to the enemy. Yeah. Right. Of course the prophet approved that
10:58
and so it's part of Islam. Uh but the the the the original ruling if you look at so there there are
11:05
things like that. There are there are numerous other examples. We won't go through all of them. But even in Makkah, just one more example, in Makkah, the prophet wasallam after the death of
11:12
Abu Talib and and the death of um he's in a very tight position. Yeah. When he comes back from and
11:21
we know what happens to him sallallahu alaihi wasallam, he accepts to take the protection of
11:27
a mushik who is favorable to him. But he's he's a polytheist and the ji is a system of jahyah. It's
11:38
part of the structure socio political structures of jahyah. It's not something Islam brought.
11:43
Right. It's something Islam approves. Yeah. But it's something from the old system. Jawar you mean the it's a system. Jawad is a system of protection where a tribal leader will say such and such
11:54
person who is not part of his tribe cuz otherwise that's natural. He's under my protection. Anyone who messes with him messes with me to put it in the street vernacular. Yes. Right. Um so
12:05
the prophet accepts the protection of a mush. He doesn't kind of say well you know if if the mush
12:10
don't I'm just going to stay outside of Makkah and do something else. He accepts that and comes in.
12:16
So there are and there are various other in in the okay maybe one other example I think is good in the battle of yeah this is significant use this to say that you can have you can have
12:29
treaties that really go against the original very clearly because of the difficult uh dire necessity
12:37
or the dire circumstances. This is because the prophet wasallam uh in the battle of the trench things are very very difficult. um he is open to agreeing with which is one of the major tribes of
12:49
the Arabs. He's saying to them, "Go back. We will give you a third of the fruits of Medina every year." A third of the fruits. That's like a That's like a reverse jiza. Islam intends for non-Islamic
13:01
entities to pay you or for you to open them and apply Islam. But he he's he agre he's he's open to
13:08
the agreement that we will give you these. just go back now so they can win this particular battle.
13:13
So, so there are there are arguments on both sides. Um and and part of part of uh my argument
13:21
on this topic would be this that number one we need to elevate the discourse but number two we need to be more omatic in our engagement with each other. It is not either or it's not this is only
13:33
correct opinion and everyone else is wrong. There are valid approaches on both sides. And if we accept that, you don't have to agree with me. You can do what you want to do, but let's engage as
13:42
brothers and as people trying to bring each other up and not I'm trying to attack you every time you
13:47
do something as a compromise, as a betrayer, as this and that. I think that's very that undercuts
13:53
um atic solidarity and brotherhood and the the overall but but the argument I suppose
‘All or nothing’
13:58
of of the of those who believe in the ideal all or nothing. I mean you and I probably fell into that
14:04
camp once upon a time. All or nothing, right? Is that those people who are engaging in this
14:10
reformist discourse uh and reformist activism, they're actually harming the ideal because by
14:16
engaging in in these pragmatic compromises with the secular nation state. Yes. Um you're giving
14:25
a lifeline to that state. How would you respond to that? Well, that's a valid argument and that that
14:31
is one of the key arguments. I I would respond to that on two fronts. One is to push back and say
14:39
that is true, but it's that's part of the truth, not the whole truth in terms of the implications of reform. Uh but the other side would be it's one thing to say this is what I think about reform.
14:51
It's another thing to say uh I would not accept the opposing view as valid at all. Right? So
14:57
that's all I'm saying. I'm saying you can still agree that you think reform is a compromise and we're going backwards fine but if you consider the if you consider the Islamic tradition which has a
15:07
lot of time for pragmatism um we can come back to that um if you consider the complex nature
15:14
of the reality and if you consider the empirical results then you have to at least accept that the
15:20
opposite view is valid and therefore you engage it in different it's like it's like any other I
15:26
don't go around attacking the because they join their prayers in travel. We have jokes about it,
15:31
but I don't attack them. Uh you do what they do what they do, we do what we do. Can we get along?
15:36
Yeah. Right. So that's one thing. But I think there is also a need more substantively. So that's kind of a procedural a better procedural approach, a more matic procedural approach.
15:46
But substantively speaking, it is I would argue that yes, it is possible, in fact,
15:53
probable that certain reformist approaches end up reinforcing the system. Yeah. Validating it,
16:01
perhaps legitimizing it and and and maybe pushing the overall goals back. But it's not inevitable,
16:07
right? It's not necessary, and it's not true of all types of reformist approaches,
16:12
right? Um we now here we can talk about 20th century experiences that show different things
16:19
or Islamic examples you know in the Islamic context and we were talking about this earlier
16:26
um we're given examples like for example Morsi Muhammad Morsi in 2013 comes to power via
16:34
kind of gradualist reformist approach one year kicked out and we're kind of not just not just
16:40
uh we're kind of back to square one or at least those approaches are back to square one and we
16:45
give an example of na in Tunisia and various other approaches to say well it hasn't worked it's failed it's failed it's failed yes but I think that needs to be nuanced like there are
16:54
other graduous approaches that whilst not arriving at the end goal no one's done that by the way
17:01
so that has to be a fair assessment um have won significant benefits and significant advances for
17:09
the cause so just two very quick ones number one in Turkey which where we sit right now and have this conversation. We probably couldn't do this 30 years ago, 40 years ago, right? Yeah. Uh now,
17:19
that's just a that's just an example to say that the the space that has opened up for Islam and
17:24
for the Islamic project in Turkey has opened up through a gradualist reformist approach. You have
17:30
to accept that. And I'm not I'm not an advocate of that. I I I still have strong inclinations for
17:35
working outside the system, for structural change, for all of that. But we just have to be fair in our assessment analysis. That's opened up the space. That's a benefit. Uh the other example very
17:47
quickly would be Syria. I don't think anyone with Islamic uh with an Islamic project or sentiments
17:53
can argue that the fall of Assad is anything but a very very good thing. Yeah. Incomparably so.
17:59
Like what we have now is incompletely better than what we had before. Irrespective of Yes. There are various very significant challenges. Yeah. But it's progress. That progress has come by
18:09
another gradualist reformist approach. Yes, that's contestable. Some may argue that there was a more
18:16
of a revolutionary wave that left there. But I don't think you can contest the fact that in the in the last four or five years and particularly the way in which Damascus fell was through HTS
18:28
Ahmed and others for example there's many elements but for example cooperating with Turkey with the
18:35
Turkish state with Turkish intelligence that's that's engaging with the system. Yeah. Right. So
18:41
I think these again point is not to say that these examples show that this is this is the way and the only way but it should allow us to have some pause when we say well clearly reformism has failed and
18:52
it failed here and it failed there and now we've only got this other approach. Yeah. And my last point would be at the same time the other approach has also not really gotten us in fact similar I
19:01
would say similar thing. The other approach has given us benefits. Yeah. There's been progress but we're almost equally as far from our objective as as we are on either side of the the coin. Great.
Socialist groups
19:14
Okay. um you've studied socialist groups and socialist movements throughout the 20th century
19:20
and and this uh the early part of this century and um off camera we had a conversation about this and
19:27
um of course we we believe that Islam has its own depth and its uniqueness to it. So you know we're
19:34
um um uh we're engaging in a conversation about Islam and inevitably the normative sources the
19:40
Islamic sources guide our thinking about Islam. However, it's apt to learn from the experiences of
19:47
others. Um, u, socialists have had a very similar conversation for the last century and a half,
19:53
two centuries about reform and revolution. Just explain that conversation to us like establish
20:01
what is it that they're trying to wrestle with and how we can learn from from their experience. Yeah,
20:06
absolutely. Um, our normative sources are from Islam exclusively, but our analytical sources,
20:13
our conceptual sources, empirical sources, understanding the reality of the world, they are not subscribed within Islamic sources and that's not the point of the revelation
20:21
anyway. Explain that to me cuz that's I mean that's a really underrated point. Explain that. So this is this is fairly uncontroversial. Um, the revelation comes by and large to establish
20:34
guidance. Yeah. So there's obviously the theology uh the the fundamental reality of the world it's
20:42
created there's Allah etc. Yeah. So the but when we talk about human action the revelation is the
20:53
it's to expound on which are moral and they guide our action. How how do you act? What do you ought
21:02
to do? M so they answer the all questions by and large uh the is question the empirical questions
21:09
they're not that's not the that's not the perview in other words it it'll come to tell you like
21:16
which it's not it's not going to teach you how to how to farm the land right okay how to pollinate
21:22
that's the classic example right um but it will tell you that if you are a farmer and you have a
21:28
harvest and this much is due as zakat or as or right to uh the authorities for these purposes
21:36
for these things and you know various other so it's there to answer all questions it's not
21:42
there to answer these questions however any any problem that we face has both elements you have
21:48
I have to understand the moral imper imperative the but applies to particular realities I need
21:55
to understand those realities and the task of understanding realities is for the human mind it's for human reason and it's a collective conversation because we can learn from others in
22:04
a nutshell. Good. So in this respect uh I think the socialist experience is instructive for us.
22:14
It's not only the socialist. There's others but the socialists have probably been the most uh clear example of a community or a you know grouping of people who are also trying
22:26
to resist change overcome the prevailing order. Right. the prevailing liberal capitalist order.
22:35
secular well they don't mind the secular part of it but the liberal capitalist part and not only
22:40
do they want to do that they've been trying since Marx at least socialist goes back before Marx but
22:47
a century and a half at least so so I think that's instructive now kind of again back of the envelope
22:53
brief outline of that experience it's very soon after Markx Markx uh dies I think 1883 1886 in
23:01
the 1880s um By within a decade of that with the in the wake of the second international there is
23:09
a debate amongst socialists amongst Marxists about whether reformist or revolutionary approaches are
23:15
better. Um Edward Bernstein is an important figure in this debate. He publishes a book in 1899 called
23:22
evolutionary socialism. Right? And again this I think that word is important because some of the ways some of the times in our discourses we talk about evolution versus revolution. In fact,
23:31
I should say a lot of our vocabulary comes from not just socialist discourse, but secular capitalist liberal discourses. It's not a problem necessarily, but we need to think
23:40
about that as well. By the way, I'd like to come back later to think about cuz not only is reform and revolution and radical thought and pragmat pragmatism, all of these concepts,
23:51
categories are not only secular but modern, right? In fact, they don't even exist in the premodern world. There are different uh different categories. But of course, Islam has its own
24:01
understandings of transformative change. So it's worth talking about uh how we conceptualize this
24:11
but we can come back to that. So for now to use those categories and terms we do talk
24:16
about evolution as a revolution. So Bernstein in 899 says you know what I love Marx but he
24:23
got some things wrong and MF with apologies with respects to the master he got some things
24:30
wrong capitalism is not as inflexible as he said so he kind of pushes back on the
24:36
historical materialism part it's not fixed and inevitable and and he's kind of right because by that time capitalism has already smoothed its own rough edges in some respects he says
24:47
If he can do that, we can push through this. We can go through parliament. We can have parties. We can work for reforms, you know, and through that means work our way up to socialism
24:58
or to a more socialist order. All right. Uh Rosa Luxembourg is another very important figure and
25:04
I'll stick to these. There are many others, but Rosa Lux is another significant. Two years later, she publishes a pamphlet titled Reform or Revolution and and she's she she has Bernstein
25:15
in mind and she's explicitly refutes him and says that in in short reforms are not bad. But if you
25:25
end up with a reform only approach, you've missed the whole point. That's not reform. Reform is
25:33
appreciable. It cannot take us to where we want to go. it cannot lead to the end of capitalism. Okay.
25:39
And there are other arguments there of course like uh which her and others make about reform can kind of which we said before legitimize the system, pate the system, delay the revolution. So
25:49
you have to be careful which reforms. But overall she suggests we need to work more on trade unions,
25:57
mass protests, uh the consciousness of the working class etc. So these are the broad contours of
26:02
debate. Yeah. And then throughout the 20th century you see the fruits of that. So on the one hand you
26:09
see socialist political parties. Um and these are all across the west. Uh the Labor Party in
26:18
Australia and in the UK have socialist roots have roots in the trade unions. Yeah. Right. Um and so
26:25
what we do so again I don't want to go through all of it but I think what you what we pick up what do we pick up? you pick up certain understandings uh about reform and its limitations. So, a lot of
26:37
these parties have ended up in a place you don't want to end up like uh a lot of the Labour parties
26:44
Tony Blair Tony Blair Tony that's probably an extreme example. A lot of the Labour parties
26:50
uh and the Democrats in the US so the left uh the mainstream left parties have ended up like right
26:57
here with the mainstream right party and it's like what's the difference between you guys anymore? So
27:02
that's clearly we don't want to end up there. At the same time there are others. So there are more Greens parties, bit better, but still kind of ended up in a in a weird place. And this is a
27:10
debate that is perennial amongst socialists between the radical left and the more kind of mainstream left. That's a broad thing. There's other aspects, but I don't want to go on too long.
27:21
I think the other thing maybe we can come back to is the reforms. There are significant reforms that are one, but then they're undone as well. So maybe we can look at that a bit later. Well,
Joining the system
27:30
yeah. I mean maybe it's worth looking at a lot of that now because of course um looking at from
27:37
a sort of an Islamic perspective we would say hey here we go we've got uh revolutionary parties that
27:43
believe in overturning the system and u Bernstein and others um Brice Web and others they they talk
27:51
about the inevitability of gradualism and the idea that joining the system does not take
27:57
you away from your idealistic goals but within time the system civilizes in inverted commas,
28:04
moderates those parties, uh, domesticates those parties and so we end up inevitably
28:10
with political parties that today look and feel like neoliberal parties. In fact, the third way,
28:17
you know, what was this sort of compromise or or this point that the Labor parties got to, the
28:23
Liberal Labor parties got to where uh they argued that capitalism is actually a very good system
28:28
and and what we probably need is just to inject the system with with a few socialist values or
28:35
very moderate socialist values. they got to a very compromised position and I suppose the fear of of
28:40
the Islamic side uh idealistic ideal uh those who seek idealistic solutions is that that is the that
28:49
is the the lure of the system the system is going to take you to that point yes where and maybe in
28:58
Tunisia is a great example of that right you know here's a political party that comes from you know Islamic roots uh but by the end of it. You can't really tell the difference between what they're
29:10
calling for and what the mainstream secular parties are calling for. Yeah. You know, explain
29:18
that. Tell tell me a bit about that. Yeah. So, look, it's a great point. Um, and that's that is a grave danger of the gracious approach. Is that inevitable? It's not inevitable. My argument would
29:28
be that it's possible, even I would argue it's probable, but it's not inevitable. What that means
29:35
then in the end is that we have to be strategic in our thinking. We have to be careful in in what
29:40
we do and we have to reassess. You don't have to kind of have a fixed approach and then you know
29:45
it's that or nothing else. Um so I would make two points on this. Number one, it's always important
29:53
to balance both sides of the argument. You can look at the reformers and where they ended up and say they ended up in a really bad place, but you should also look at the revolutionaries and you
30:00
know Lenon and Stalin didn't end up in a very good place either. Right. Of course, Muslims will say, "Well, that's not us." But it's an experience of revolution. In fact, every uh great revolution,
30:13
yeah, that means total basic revolutions uh have only come with extreme significant levels of
30:20
violence and disruption starting with the French. Uh the Russian and the Chinese are the three major
30:26
examples of that. uh and and um so so so you have to look at the other side. Now again as I said
30:35
Muslims will say well that's not us you know we have a different approach and this and that what can we take conceptually from this this is this is what I was pointing to the a lot of the socialist
30:43
party ended up in bad spots where you don't want to go and that again I want to say that is a grave danger you have to keep that in mind and and you have to consider that the however there's a lot
30:56
more to learn for us again because history doesn't there's no copy pasting it's not like because it
31:02
happened to them it's going to happen to us it's a more question what can we learn and how can we adopt and adapt within our own frameworks one of the important things to keep in mind is that there
31:12
were like I've given examples of significant reform-based progress for Muslims there was
31:18
there was significant reform-based progress for socialists the new deal in the 1930s in the wake of the great depression was significant there was very significant adjustments no doubt but you know
31:29
for workers increased minimum wages unemployment benefits, welfare, a lot of this stuff came in the
31:35
New Deal. At the same time, uh the New Deal within about 40 50 years, by the time of the new liberal
31:44
um era, most of that was undone. Okay? Which which did two things in socialist circles. Number one,
31:52
it brought the debate of strategy back on the table and it allowed the revolutions to say,
31:57
"I told you so. Luxembourg was right. Lenin was right that's capitalism it's come back to
32:04
so and they said that however I would argue that more kind of more nuanced uh closer readers even
32:10
among socialists have made slightly different argument they've said well let's think about this if reforms only pate and legitimize this is Makaveli's argument by that mavel in the prince
32:20
says rule he's advising rulers rulers should give the people the reforms they want before
32:28
they're forced to in In other words, like if you see troubles and kind of unease like CC is now
32:35
for example in Egypt and rulers do this all the time. Give something to the pamasses. And that
32:41
that's that's led to this almost very um standard argument that reforms placate reforms legitimize.
32:49
But we need to think about this. If the reform, if the reforms of the New Deal were simply uh kind of
32:57
in the favor of capitalism, why did the capitalist system push back so strongly? Why was there such
33:04
a strong capitalist neoliberal push back to say we don't want these? Yeah, the the answer I think
33:13
the only answer is because they weren't in favor of capitalism. And what we can pick up from that is again this is kind of a little bit theoretical but there's a practical um implication. There are
33:22
different types of reform. You have to think about the logic. Capitalist practices have a
33:27
certain logic. Socialist practices uh ideas have a certain logic. Islam likewise. Take
33:33
the capitalist logic of commodification. You commodify everything or or market. You market everything. That's neoliberalism. Imprisism is the idea that everything should be uh set
33:42
up as a market and supply demand and so on and so forth. But socialist logic of welfare goes against
33:48
that. Socialist logic of trade unions goes against that. Right? And that's why trade unions have been
33:55
by and large pushed back against all across the West. But here's the point. If there's a if the
34:00
logics are countered to each other, that creates a tension in the system. Yeah. And so it's wrong to
34:06
say that it simply legitimates and simply favors the system. No, no, it creates a tension. There is
34:12
a tension there. That's why there's push back. So then okay, what can you make of that? Well, can you accumulate these elements and accumulate the tensions? Yeah, you can. Theoretically, we
34:22
can. Can you accumulate that to a point where so this is the point back to the original idea. I'm
34:28
not at all suggesting we become gradualists and all reformers and so on and so forth. Yeah, any kind of reformist approach has to be oriented by revolutionary or radical ends, right? And it has
34:42
to also within its core toolkit have the option of radical positions because they are you need them
34:49
at certain times. uh so within that way so if you can think if we can think of reforms as preparing
34:56
the ground towards radical transformative change then I think there's we should have
35:02
more time for that that should be considered but you need to it's case by case it's on the merit
35:07
um but if you're just going to go well I don't really you know if you're going to if you're going to forego which is what happened in many of the social if you're going to forego the end
35:17
goals then you're just wasting your time then then that's different different thing alto together and
35:22
I think that distinction between those two models is extremely important. Do you know of any project Islamic project today like a a manifest Islamic project where um those uh parties adopt um a an
35:37
approach which we would think to be a reformist approach yet they maintain very radical ends.
35:43
I think if that's the case, if we're thinking about that, I don't know of any that work within
35:50
the system because this is there's also I mean there's within the system, outside the system, there's like structural versus policy changes. There's different ways to frame this radical
35:58
versus pragmatic approaches. Yeah, I'm not sure of anyone within the system that does this, but I do think we can conceive of people um outside perhaps even inside. It's difficult like so far
36:12
it's difficult to look at um HTS's example or even the Taliban's example because we don't ultimately
36:18
know what's their ultimate objectives. That's right. Right. If anything we should perhaps assume
36:24
we should be charitable and assume continuency cuz we know where they started. Um and if that's
36:31
the case then there would be examples and I'm sure there be I haven't thought about this um I'm sure we can think of other examples but my starting premise here is that we have we this is an area
36:41
in which we are underdeveloped it's underthought it's under theorized uh it's under interrogated
36:47
and so there is benefit to be found and positives to be found in all the different approaches but
36:55
we really need an open discussion and a frank discussion about what new approaches can we adopt as we move forward? Um, can I uh ask you about the activity of politics because I think a
Strategy in politics
37:06
lot of those who believe in in ideals who believe that there should be a revolutionary approach to
37:12
uh to politics um and the goal can never be uh can never be lost but also our actions have to
37:21
be guided very much by those revolutionary goals. they forget or they dismiss the idea that politics
37:27
is a a gray terrain. It's a it's an area where um there is an element of I don't know if flexibility
37:35
is the right word but there is an element of strategim that needs to be applied and we can see that throughout the life of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam in Makkah and Medina that you mean
37:43
as you quite rightly pointed out in in those examples that sometimes in politics in order
37:49
to achieve a a better end compromises have to be made. Yes. Um uh concessions have to be made with
37:55
the enemy especially when you're in a very tight position. Is there a failure by the ide idealistic
38:02
um uh group or groupings uh where they do not appreciate um politics in a in a sort of more live
38:13
sense and and they almost like place the political domain too closely under under sort of hookumsh
38:22
uh constraints. Do you get the point? Yes. Yes. Um I think there is a sense amongst the more idealist
38:32
crowd. So what the way I refer to it is that there's politics has a large degree of judgment.
38:40
It requires judgment. Yeah. Uh judgment here means that there are multiple factors. There's
38:45
complexities and you have to make a call. Um, and I think yes, sometimes the idealists think that
38:54
there's a fixed set of rules and if we just follow the rules, then it's kind of rather clear and then it's, you know, it's kind of all good. So, Ahmed Ash, he uh engages in conversations with the UAE,
39:06
they would dismiss him as a as a betrayer. Yeah. Well, in that case, any any rule that's uh any of
39:11
the default positions, if they're broken, Yeah. then that becomes a subject of of criticism,
39:17
right? Um, having said that, there is so I'm not sure this is because politics is exceptional or
39:24
because this is the nature of human life. I kind of inclined to the latter view, which is say we're ending up at the same spot, but and this is this is actually a debate amongst contemporary
39:33
scholars, particularly scholars of Islamic studies as to whether politics has an a slightly
39:39
exceptional logic in Islam and in the Sharia. Yes. and therefore greater room or whether this
39:45
is within the as a whole. Right. Right. Because it's the same in individual life. The reason I
39:50
say I'm more inclined to the latter of view, it's very similar in individual life. We deal in my individual life and your individual life. We we we compromise and deal in concerns all the time. Not
40:00
least because we live in a non-Islamic system. Mhm. So it's the same thing. There's questions of judgment. I have to make judgment. So the rule says you know for example salah is we have to pray
40:11
five times a day but if you're sick you don't have to pray who decides when I'm sick this is
40:17
what I mean by judgment so the that rule of the concession is going to apply when I am sick but
40:25
only I will judge when I'm sick and there'll be there'll be some further rules well so the fuka will say well you should go to a doctor should be Muslim doctor should be upright person trustworthy
40:32
so you get the good judgment but really in the end we all know sometimes I have a you know
40:38
scratchy throat and you know slight flu symptoms and other times I'm kind of have to I'm I'm in
40:44
bed and really really bad fever where's the line there's no clear-cut line this is why my judgment
40:50
so there's a big scope of judgment in human life per se and therefore if there's exceptional it's
40:57
more like theat are a lot more um yeah even but I just gave the example right didn't so my in my
41:05
view the as a soul has a large scope of judgment and uh that's where there's there's um there's a
41:14
there's there's there's there's room for different judgments but I think the open didn't fah develop
Elasticity in Political realm
41:20
this idea of sasa sharia and within that corpus there is a a conversation um and you know more
41:28
about this than I do a conversation about about the greater elasticity maybe that exists within
41:34
the political realm to other realms. Yes. Yeah. I mean in fact the the notion of sasa the def
41:40
the the more formal definition of sasa in the Islamic tradition is the ruler's judgments right
41:46
and there's a large scope for that but it's not it's not complete open scope there are boundaries there are limits there's should be oriented by the ends and so on and so forth but but again that
41:55
just that discussion around whether this is just inasa or there's something more fundamental within
42:01
the within usul as a whole is is another it's a theoretical debate we don't have to uh resolve
42:06
that one. But what we agree is that there is a large scope here and you can't uh this is also
42:14
a type of deep politicization by the way. It's a different form of deep politicization because you you're trying to replace politics proper which is about navigating different interests,
42:24
different views, different communities and making judgments. You're trying to supplant that with a
Compromises
42:30
set of rules that are just going to now we do this and now we do this and now we do this. Yeah, again I'm charactering a little bit but uh relative the positions can be understood relative to to each
42:40
other in this sense. Can we talk a bit about those guardrails then the red lines um because of course
42:48
Turkeykey's is an example now you you mentioned I know you weren't praising it outright but you mentioned you know the cons the achievements of the uh current Turkish government and state
42:59
have been quite numerous you know women couldn't wear hijab yes now they can wear hijab right you know Islamic schools are flourishing where in in the path so heavily regulated um uh Muslim life
43:10
generally speaking in this country is far more amanable to an Islamic life. You know, there are
43:16
people actually who believe in those ideals who have moved to Turkey in order to live Islamic lives, right? So, you know, we we have we have all of that. But at the same time, the government has
43:25
had to make some very deep concessions with the capitalist order. Yes, interest rates is a great example of that. You know, I know Erdogan, you know, the president here, um,
43:34
he had this philosophy of lowering interest rates, but that became structurally untenable because,
43:40
of course, the system doesn't work like that. And so he had to reverse course and now interest rates
43:47
are going up once again. And and that is, you know, deeply concerning, I suppose, for devout
43:52
Muslims who believe that any amount of interest is is a problem. So, you know, within this elasticity
44:00
that we've talked about, you know, is there a a permission to commit oneself to haram actions
44:08
maybe or haram policies or problematic policies in order to get to an ultimate Islamic goal. That's a
44:16
good framing. In fact, there are I think there are more significant compromises than just interest,
44:21
right? Uh give us those examples. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, there's a genocide going on, you know,
44:29
u you can fill in the gaps. uh in Syria in the end definitely the fall of Assad uh was assisted but
44:36
there were there were times in 2014 2015 where the positions taken by the Turkish state led to
44:44
um I won't say directly but indirectly because they didn't come to their aid to uh you know there were massacres happening here in in the north of Syria and so on and so so there are
44:54
um and of course a lot of this is because because modern life is populations are so large the states
45:00
so complex everything the stakes are so much higher in almost every regard. So yes, if you
45:09
uh if you enter the system, if you work for reforms, it comes at compromise because there's a
45:17
different system in place. Having said that, it's not as if you stay outside, you don't. And again,
45:22
even this inside outside needs to be interrogated because I would argue there's no complete outside.
45:28
Yeah. Unless you go to Mars, but even Elon Musk is going to probably get there before you. So there won't be an outside. You have you have to go further out to Jupiter. Yeah. So I don't think
45:36
there's the complete outside and again I push back. It's one in conversations that I have with
45:42
with good friends who come from that idealistic perspective. Yeah. I remind them of their own
45:49
private and communal lives and I say I can list 10 different compromises that you've that you engage in and that I engage in. Why is it okay for us? Because the should be coherent. That's not saying
45:59
you're a hypocrite. That's not my point. My point is in the end you rais a very good point about
46:07
the Sharia. We shouldn't compromise on our shar ideals. That's your point, right? But we do. So
46:13
let's bring that into the conversation in in order to come up with a more coherent understanding and
46:19
action instead of privately we do all these things like put them under the carpet and then publicly
46:26
we say oh that's wrong, you're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong. I don't think that's a that's a very um kind of genuine or uh um serious uh valid approach. So, but anyway,
46:40
come back to your question. Yeah, there will be compromises. What are the guardrails? Yeah,
46:47
this depends on okay within the Islamic tradition, it's a very vast tradition. Um
46:55
and there are different approaches to this. uh someone like Ibentamia for example um profers
47:07
profers an approach that's really very much a kind of utilitarianism within the Sharia
47:13
but it's a utilitarianism. So in cases what you will do in the end is kind of
47:18
weigh up the benefits and the harms and if there's more benefits you do the benefit even if the default position of the benefit is that it wasn't allowed
47:26
and he's got a whole theory around that and a whole just exceptionalize politics in this
47:31
um that's debated. I think we can probably say in his case yes um like you wouldn't do
47:38
that in ibadat or anywhere else you would do that in politics or even actually no if you put it that way no really. Yeah. Um cuz it depends you you you find you find yourself in
47:48
difficult circumstances as an individual in your in your other areas you find that as well but the
47:54
scope is higher. Yes. He does say in in there's a there's the most relevant section in the in the
48:05
the uh conflict of good things and bad things, right? um thing like moral things and kind of
48:14
immoral things. Yeah. And his basic premise there is to talk about well in life we come across that
48:19
some things are clear it's good you do it bad you leave it when they're mixed what do you do right when it's mixed I'm going to do something that's going to lead to a greater harm but there's
48:29
entails some some bad right the classical examples the is oppressive someh is oppressive can I be
48:40
the kadi and this is my point like the point is However you frame the discussion, there's
48:48
always been two or more views. Abu Hanifh said, "I'm not going to do it." That's a principled
48:55
position. Abu Ysef, his student of years and years says, "I'll do it." A few years later,
49:03
he says, "I'll do that." And he's the first of under the right. So that's always been
49:10
there. In fact, in even in a broad broad sense from an Islamic perspective, uh the
49:20
approach to politics and approach to the issues that arise in the post-prphetic and the post Rashidon era, is a lot more pragmatic and Hussein's is a lot more revolutionary.
49:32
Right? Hussein says this is my right. This is our right and the um is going to be the worst for it.
49:38
I will go. Hassan compromised in the end. He deserved it. I don't think anyone would argue
49:45
that deserve more than Hassan. But he said, "Okay, I'll step down." So, we've got paradigms and
49:53
scholars use this Hassan and Husseini paradigm. Okay. But in even in the prophets, we have this
49:58
uh Dr. him in the conference a few days ago uses this very good example where Mus Alisam when he
50:04
goes to meet Allah on Mount Si Allah calls him for 40 nights the ban is behind him start they
50:13
adopt a calf and start worshiping him when Mus Alam comes he's furious and he's furious with
50:19
Harun he says why don't you do anything why did you disobey me did you disobey me I told
50:29
I told you to succeed me. Succeed in me and do the right thing. Harun says I it would have caused
50:40
division. If I took a step, it would have caused division. I feared that I would have divided the
50:46
people and and that would have been against what you said. So how do I have to make a judgment? Do I stop them and divide the people or do I wait? And so so again we've got two paradigms and this
50:57
there are many other examples of that but come back to the guardrails. Sorry this is I've gone on a bit longer here but I think all of these points are important. the the the guardrails.
51:06
There are some you cannot in any circumstance change uh contravene but they're very few
51:16
uh rape for example full stop categorical torture for example although in practice Islamic history
51:25
and in contemporary history people work around that but I would argue torture not allowed
51:31
um things like that but it is very few so let's Think about uh uh the killing of civilians.
51:41
Killing of civilians is haram in Islam. That's the default position. In war and war is politics by
51:48
other means. Are you allowed to directly target civilians? No. What if the collateral damage in
51:57
a particular there's a fortress and it's hoarded up and you have to use uh in those days there used
52:03
to be catapults and the fauka say this explicitly if that's the case yes when if the result of not
52:12
doing it is going to cause greater harm than doing it right so lying we this is famous you can lie in
52:19
war lying is haram why can you lie in war so in When I when I say that some people end up at kind
52:25
of utilitarian Islamic utilitarianism because of this this is how they grounded. Well this is the
52:30
this is how this is its logics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 it's all over the place. So, so there are guard rails,
52:36
but you cannot supplant the very large scope of judgment and this is where we're relying on the
52:44
sincerity and the knowledge of the people making the judgment, the scholars and the politicians, the the khalifa, the wies and so on. And obviously ideally they should these people should have
52:55
knowledge of both or they should access to the knowledge of both both elements politics and shar
53:00
and management and sharia. But you can't supp you can't supplant that. And it's the same inad this
53:06
is my last point. It's the same like politics when you do there'sul that guide your interpretation
53:15
but theul don't supplant the of judgment. You have to make a judgment and and there's a vast scope
53:21
for that. And in the end it's not the rules that by themselves guarantee that we're not going to
53:27
deviate outside. what what what what guarantees that is the sincerity, the genuiness and the
53:33
knowledge of the person doing the um but you can see by the fact the point of is to keep you within
53:40
boundaries but the the scope of the Sharia in this is so vast this is where we ended up there
53:46
are so many opinions on almost every issue because the scope of judgment is is large so so far we've
Islamic ideals
53:54
talked about um ideals uh we've said we've used the term revolutionary. Islam has a revolutionary
54:01
um uh side to it. Islam looks to establish you know um uh itself in in a society and the prophet
54:11
sallallahu alaihi wasallam did that in Medina with the exclusion of all others. So you know Islam was the sole uh uh dean that was applied uh over the Medina. Right. Yeah. So just spell
54:24
out for me um what are your ideals like when we talk about ideals um like what would you see in
54:31
the context of the world in which we live which is which has a neoliberal economic order which
54:38
you know sec where secularism is is deeply rooted within uh the the nation state system that that
54:46
um uh that uh infects let's call it infects the Muslim world because I mean you know a lot of
54:52
you know, these these concepts are antagonistic to Islam, right? Um, with all of that said, with the
55:00
fact that we live in this very highly restrictive, probably more restrictive than the pagan society of of Arabs of Mecca Medina, right? We live in this very restrictive structural domain. Uh,
55:11
within that context, spell out your ideals to me. I think the the the realities that you've
55:17
described complicate the discussion of methods and strategies more than ideals cuz the point of
55:26
an ideal is this is what I this is what we want right the ideal doesn't have to engage with the
55:32
reality right that's the point ideal reality right so I can so therefore the ideals remain largely
55:38
the same what's what needs to be determined is the form they will take but the ideals remain largely
55:45
the same um just we want Islam as a reference point not just in our private individual lives
55:51
but in our communal and our societal and global lives as an um we want Islam as a reference point
55:57
we want to manifest the sovereignty of Allah uh the Quranic terminology is we want to elevate the
56:04
word of Allah so that the word of Allah is the highest um and in fact those few things express
56:10
because that basically means the Quran and have to be the reference point and then everything that flows from that becomes ideals by derivation. The more difficult questions are, well, what form does
56:23
that take in the modern world, right? What does an Islamic polity look like in the modern world? For
56:28
example, what does political unification look like? Um, in a neoliberal order, how do you
56:35
uh institute a free economy? Those are the hard questions, right? But I say hard, I don't think
56:40
they're impossible. This is where we need work. Uh this is this is the work we try and facilitate
56:46
and do some of in at theatics institute. Yeah. uh but but as I said I think setting out those
56:53
ideals is not difficult. The forms need work but the practical realities is is is what complicates
The Caliphate
57:00
the method element caliphate. Um we had our last conversation was about caliphate. Yes. um you know
57:06
there'll be people listening to your response to it and said well wait a minute used to believe in a caliphate in his in his big moment where he had to express the ideals he didn't mention
57:19
uh so okay when I say Islam polity I mean I mean caliphate yes um it's just that they're im yes
57:28
uh that's definitely part of the ideals when I say the sovereignty is for Allah Islam is reference
57:34
point yes those are actually the substantive um the substantive elements of caliphate. In fact,
57:42
we can I think we can disagregate caliphate into stewardship the small ka which is which
57:49
is the object of Islam stewardship but then you want you want to reflect the the
57:55
fact that Allah's word is the highest Allah is sovereign and so on and so forth. So definitely uh the caliphate is part of the ideal. I have not stepped back from that. Yes. Um but again my point
58:06
is the it's the question of form form because in a way this informs the conversation today. You would
Different forms
58:13
I think it's fair to say you'd probably entertain uh uh a wider array of forms on on in that pathway
58:23
to a that journey to a caliphate than maybe you would have previously like just explain that.
58:28
Yeah definitely. So I think um being open being open to different forms within the mandate of the
58:38
Sharia is part of this discussion and again it's it's one of the points of amongst people scholars
58:45
and individuals who work in this field. Yeah. Um this is not an area that work on to be able
58:54
to provide more kind of concrete uh differences. But if I talk of others, yeah, um does the does
59:01
the caliphate have to be a completely centralized unitary um uh you know unification of all Islamic
59:10
countries? Yeah. Or can it be can it be more decentralized? Can it be federalist? Uh and
59:16
it is not me. There are Muslim scholars who have uh um articulated these views uh for a long time
59:24
not now going all the way back to the start of the 20th following the fall of the caliphate. In fact,
59:29
straight after the fall in the wake of the fall of the Ottoman caliphate and of course in fact Dr. Anjam has written about this in his original paper who wants a caliphate. He's written about
59:37
the various models historically of the caliphate. Yeah. So in part it's a question of one's an
59:44
understanding of how expansive or restrictive the Sharia is. Yeah. On the other hand it's also and
59:50
this is a function the difference is a function of how historical or ahistorical your understanding
59:58
of what we need to do is how how much are you informed by history Islamically speak sorry
1:00:03
historically speaking the caliphate took various forms. And so what does that mean for today? Um
1:00:10
part of the thing is like I'm not inclined to the idea that we need to set out the model completely
1:00:17
in advance. Right? And this is the other point going back to reform and revolution. I think a lot of the takeaways from the social experience from uh everything else that I spoke about is
1:00:27
the need for kind of nonlinear nonsequentialist more of a recursive iterative process of method.
1:00:34
So you have your boundaries, you have your kind of principles which we've elaborated. Um but then
1:00:42
what's what's in fact what's most important is a close reading of the prevailing reality. What's
1:00:48
happening? Where are the opportunities? What works and what doesn't work in terms of tactics
1:00:54
and strategies? And then instead of going, well now I've set my plan, here's my phased approach
1:01:00
for the next 20 years and that's what I'm going to do regardless of what happens. No, no, no. You need to reassess in six months, in a year, in five years, in reassess. Has the reality changed.
1:01:11
Have cracks opened up elsewhere? And in fact, one of the point that I I picked up from my study of
1:01:16
the socialist experience and this is my last point on on this uh the technical kind of term is our
1:01:24
relation to historical time. But what it means is let me just give examples. Sometimes the idealists
1:01:29
have this approach where or the revolutionaries have this approach where revolution is always
1:01:35
just around the corner. Yeah. The goal uh in the case of the socialist you know the fall of
1:01:41
capitalism and in the case of Islam maybe the is always around the corner. On the other hand
1:01:48
the reformers have this approach where the the the change is so far into the future you don't
1:01:55
need to worry about it. Right. It's it's delayed indefinitely. And I think both of those relations
1:02:01
to historical time are problematic because they come back and impact what you do. If you think the
1:02:07
change is just around the corner always, you're going to be short-termist, right? Straightforward. Why would you plan 5 10 years ahead? It could be next week, right? And then the week after that
1:02:16
and you just keep delaying the inevitable. But likewise, if you think it's completely inevitable, you're never going to think about that. So you need to be open to that overall. Obviously,
1:02:25
it's a long-term thing, but if there are ruptures, I need to be open to capture that reality and
1:02:31
capture that the opportunity. Sorry. And that's only going to happen if I'm oriented by the more
1:02:37
radical revolutionary ends. Yes. Even as I may even as I may engage in reformist strategies and
1:02:46
um approaches as as a matter of means and method. And I suppose you know the one iteration of of
Seerah’s methodology
1:02:54
this more idealistic approach would argue that uh there is a methodology and that methodology
1:03:00
suggests that you need to wrestle power from the deep state from and and remove completely that
1:03:07
layer of of uh elites uh by way of revolution by way of a coup by way of an of army generals
1:03:17
taking over. And that's the methodology that that is informed by the s like how would you how would
1:03:23
you respond to that? Well, I I think that that rests on an incorrect reading of the s number one. But I hold it as a valid view. Okay. I don't attack it as you know kind of like invalid. It's
1:03:31
an approach. You want to do it good. Yeah. So that's one point. It's not the only reading of the s. There are multiple readings. Uh and if my view is that that's that's kind of a weak one.
1:03:41
Yeah. We probably don't have time to go into that right now. Right. My other point would be again as
1:03:46
just as we assess the reformist approaches and we should do that critically and we have said failed
1:03:53
here failed here if held there. We should have a similar critical evaluation of the revolutionary approach. Um it hasn't worked and it's not like it's been 5 10 years 70 80 years hasn't worked. So
1:04:07
how do you how does that factor in? Do you do you keep saying well since we've ticked the kind of um
1:04:13
shadowy boxes or the moral boxes again for me this is an a an manifestation of a deep politicization
1:04:20
you're going to say we we tick these boxes someone else's problem we're going to keep doing the same thing but it could the problem could not be in the in the moral sh boxes. It could be in your
1:04:28
tactics and your strategies. Yeah. Are we going to reassess them? Are we going to change? Are we going to have dynamism? Are we going to be stuck within the same ways? So so that's the thing.
1:04:37
And my third and final point would be this is something I I should have said earlier. One way of framing and understanding the the real uh challenge of this kind of reform versus
1:04:48
revolution question is in terms of possibility and feasibility. On the one hand, it is a very valid
1:04:57
question to ask can the reformist pathway take us to where we where we want to be? Can it is it
1:05:05
possible? Right? And if it's not possible, then you're wasting your time. On the other hand, the
1:05:10
question, the very real and and valid challenge or question for the revolutionary side is, is it feasible or is it just naive and utopian? Right? And if it's just naive and utopian, then
1:05:21
it's a waste of time. So there's there's both a question of possibility and a feasibility and that
1:05:27
for me animates this problem. Yeah. Obviously I think there are solutions and Islam Islamic we are we have to be optimistic but we also have to take the challenge that we face serious as seriously as
1:05:39
we take the challenge that the other side faces and not just keep repeating their challenge and kind of ignoring or downplaying uh our own one. Dr. Asan earlier on uh you mentioned and you
1:05:50
didn't elaborate but you mentioned a point about vocab. Yes. the vocabulary we use when it comes to
1:05:57
uh this whole terrain like expand on that please. Yeah, I think that's very important. Um and of course in allics we are very much about being careful about the categories about language.
1:06:09
I said before that reform, revolution, pragmatism, radicalism, all of these categories are modern.
1:06:15
They're secular categories. They arise in certain historical context. In fact, revolution is very closely tied to the French Revolution and what happens after that. Um,
1:06:25
and so so is reform. So that that's not to say that therefore we can't use them,
1:06:31
but it's important to think closely about um what they mean, what some of the nuances are,
1:06:39
what some of the emotive effective elements are, and what does Islam what are the
1:06:44
Islamic categories? cuz it's not as if uh like thoroughgoing transformative social change is a
1:06:51
that's not modern. That happened before the Roman Empire adopted Christianity in the 4th century.
1:06:56
Significant change, right? Christianity went from a persecuted minority to Christendom eventually,
1:07:04
right? It's just that revolution wasn't used for that. That's something else. I don't want to go into other premodern cultures for now for lack of time but Islamically speaking we have a vocab
1:07:14
um but it requires some reconceptualization first so this is the way I would do it briefly
1:07:24
revolution first we need to differentiate we need to break down revolution I actually don't like the category revolution by the way really uh there are problems with it not that I'm against
1:07:33
radical change that's not the point but revolution it's too closely tied to like suddeness, violence,
1:07:41
and I think there's a tension there. Like if you if you conceptualize revolution as a as sudden transformative change, you're dealing in attention. How can transformative change be
1:07:50
sudden? You can't. It's going to be a long precursor to that, right? So, and it's not
1:07:57
always violent. Uh, of course, the question of violence also should, I think, be spoken about. I think there are some um cliches we deal in and we just adopt from ideas. It's a lot more
1:08:08
complicated. But to stick to this point, I think the better way to look at revolution is as a two
1:08:14
is in two elements. Revolution is necessarily has a long uh a long struggle that is intellectual,
1:08:27
political, social on various fronts and then it has a rupture moment. So we need to break this
1:08:34
up. The revolution is not revolutionary change is not sudden. The rupture moment is sudden. Okay?
1:08:40
But you need that long-term hard work, right? And that's that's really the difficult one. That's
1:08:46
the long one that needs the strategizing, but you need to be open to the rapture, right? And you need to be also think think about that. Yeah. If we think about it in these terms, then I think
1:08:55
now the the Islamic vocab fits in the Islamic vocab of social change is along the ideas of
1:09:03
revival. is kind of renewal, revival. Um, and then we've got these other categories
1:09:09
of like Yeah. Uh, which are important. This is what I was talking about. Like
1:09:16
the point of language is that the way you conceive something is always going
1:09:21
to be tied in some senses to your metaphysics to your fundamentals. So think about the difference between revolution and or revolution gives you the sense that you
1:09:34
flip the tables. So revolution you flip things around and kind of like you did it and ascribes
1:09:43
the change to Allah. It's an is an opening from Allah. NAS literally means aid, support from
1:09:53
where? From Allah. So you can see how the the the Islamic creed or the theology is coming in
1:09:59
in our in our notions of social change whereas in the kind of socialist or even liberal notion of
1:10:04
change it's not there because they're secular. So, so there's a lot more that can be said but to come back for me those two phases would be basically in Islamic terms there is a long process of andam
1:10:22
says Allah says this in the Quran there's a long process of that ends up in and uh elevating the
1:10:35
word of Allah I think those are the vocabularies that we need to work with. Does it mean we can't use the others? We have to always use these. No. Uh because it's just that that's that's
1:10:45
kind of a barrier. Like if I'm if I'm discussing if we're discussing in in a Muslim context, yes,
1:10:50
I think we should use these terms more. But when it's a it's a more of a common discussion, then
1:10:56
um it's not always a simple way out to simply use Arabic terminology. But I think over time
1:11:03
uh through this kind of work we can make it more in currency. Um that's how I would look at this
1:11:11
Dr. um one last point. I mean I I I feel that the idealistic position or those who carry the
Idealistic position
1:11:18
idealistic position and maybe I'm caricaturing here a little bit but I feel that they've lost
1:11:23
you've mentioned this before they lost the ability to strategize and to think deeply about their own actions and about that space where uh there is we're at greater liberty to
1:11:36
uh to achieve ends and we need to think deeply about that space and I I feel that's been lost
1:11:41
because of course the the idealists tend to argue well there is this fixed course almost
1:11:47
destiny that almost fatalism Allahh has promised us a caliphate and a caliphate is around the
1:11:53
corner and so we just have to keep doing what we're doing even though what we're doing isn't working and it's obviously not working and there is no strategy to achieve that but we need to just
1:12:03
keep doing it because one day Allahh will give us victory and that's sort of uh the the approach
1:12:09
which I I find quite problematic Um uh can I can I ask you to comment on the approach of Salahubi in
1:12:18
a sense because I do believe that politics gives us greater elasticity when it comes to uh when it
1:12:25
comes to using our discretion in that space which isn't heavily guided by Sharia and even if that
1:12:31
space is guided by Sharia like he uh he made some fairly bitter compromise big compromises I would
1:12:40
say you know joining with the fatim state, right? Um um unifying Syria did involve fighting Muslims,
1:12:48
right? So like how do we understand and we we we like we say Salahoud Yubi was a great general, a
1:12:57
great man, right? So like how do we interpret the actions of Salah from an idealistic lens? Well,
1:13:06
first of all, I think it's not necessary that if you're idealistic, you are not strategic.
1:13:12
It's unfortunate that that sometimes is the case. Yeah. Doesn't have to be the case. So,
1:13:17
but I think it's very important if you again if you supplant the realm of strategy with
1:13:22
um just moralizing. Yeah, that's a problem. And then you're going to just do the same
1:13:28
thing again again and it's not going to work. You do need a means end that that's politics proper. like it's about understanding the particular prevailing realities and figuring how do I get
1:13:37
from A to B and and not only that figuring out how I do that given different views, opinions,
1:13:45
strategies, interests, that's politics. So I think that's very very important
1:13:52
and I have to acknowledge you I I really enjoyed your podcast with uh Dr. Abdman. Yeah. Um I
1:14:00
enjoyed that thoroughly. Yeah. Uh so abdam. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Sunni revival and the rest of it.
1:14:08
For me really is a point that the idealists have to grapple with and I don't think they have. No.
1:14:16
In in the framework that I'm I'm suggesting I think is very good. He's aiming for radical change. Yeah. He wants to win back Jerusalem. Wants to open Jerusalem. Take it back from the
1:14:27
crusaders. He wants to unite Egypt and Syria. radical objective at the time. Um, and we have
1:14:34
to keep in mind, sorry, one thing I think we kind of I've kind of missed is radical change doesn't always mean the end goal. Sometimes there's radical steps. And this is a push back against
1:14:42
reformists. Sometimes the reformists always paint radical moves as naive and utopian. No, no,
1:14:48
the two very quick examples from kind of universal history or western history, not universal. uh the
1:14:57
way slavery was ended in the US. Abraham Lincoln put out a procl emancipation proclamation 1863. 2
1:15:03
years later 13th amendment at the there were 4 million enslaved people in the US at the time. That's not pragmatism. And I don't know anyone who now would say that was a bad move. All right.
1:15:15
that in in in British India at the start of the 20th century uh the idea that the the the vision
1:15:24
of complete independence from the British was a radical idea. Yes. But they adopted it and they
1:15:29
worked for it and it took them 50 years and they achieved it. So that's that's definitely there. Coming back to um when I think about now again I think about the debates around cuz what I'm
1:15:42
hearing from the idealist around is just he he compromised here he compromised compromise compromise how can you know he's betrayed he's done that how do you deal with the compromises
1:15:51
of people like Salah who we all celebrate right Salah uh his his pathway to reconquering Jerusalem
1:16:02
was to unite Egypt and Syria and the pathway to rec to to take Egypt in part involved giving
1:16:08
effective to the Fatimid Khalifa and being Israeli for a period of time. The Fatimids
1:16:14
as people know the iselies for many scholars are not considered part of Islam, right? They're not they're not 12s. They're not they're more extreme kind of that aside that politically speaking. So
1:16:25
let's leave the theology. Politically speaking, the Fatamides are rebels against the Abbassids.
1:16:32
Yeah. And you've become a value of the rebels from there's no doubt that that from a default
1:16:39
position that's that's a compromise. But but he does that because again it's a kind of like it's
1:16:44
the the in my mind has in my mind would definitely say that was justified because the ends uh there
1:16:52
was a greater benefit to be had and we saw it. He was able to establish in those years as he was a
1:16:58
wii that's where he was able to uh establish his roots network find people see who can do what so
1:17:05
that when the the last the young khalifa of the farm passed away he was able to take power if he
1:17:11
wasn't there he wouldn't be able to do it you can't just you may be able to do it but that's what he did and then there were other things that that were there as well and that's the pathway he
1:17:20
used so the point in the end is it's again it's a matter of coherence Um if you think there's no
1:17:28
element for compromise except in very very like slim dire necessity situations then don't cate
1:17:35
then celebrate salah. You can still say well we we accept the ends but we don't accept the mid but
1:17:41
no one says that. So it's a need to people need to grapple with it both on this side and on the other side of the reformist. We we need to grapple with points of reality, points of history, points of
1:17:53
that go against our view. This is how you elevate the discourse and and move forward. I thoroughly
1:18:00
enjoyed that conversation. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you very much for having me.
1:18:08
Please remember to subscribe to our social media and YouTube channels and head over to our website thinkingmuslim.com to sign up to my weekly newsletter. Okay.