Coffee Was Once Haram? Dispelling Popular Myths (2022-12-05) ​

0:00:04 and welcome to blogging theology today
0:00:07 we're pleased to speak to brother
0:00:09 salaam alaikum brother how are you
0:00:13 doing well how are you doing
0:00:15 alhamdulillah
0:00:17 is an academic and researcher based in
0:00:20 Canada he studied at the University of
0:00:22 Toronto in York University and earned a
0:00:24 bachelor's master's degree respectively
0:00:26 in the area of political science
0:00:28 as for the Islamic Sciences his main
0:00:31 areas of Interest lie in the Hadith
0:00:33 sciences and hambali jurisprudential law
0:00:36 and he has a number of ijazat in these
0:00:38 two areas he has published a number of
0:00:41 research articles which one can access
0:00:43 in the link in the description box below
0:00:46 today the topic of interest is a paper
0:00:50 written by Masood which pertains to the
0:00:53 coffee controversy it's an article
0:00:55 entitled
0:00:56 coffee was once Haram the spelling
0:01:00 popular myths regarding a nuanced legal
0:01:03 issue
0:01:04 another method will inshallah take us
0:01:07 through the main themes of this paper
0:01:09 and shed light on the most important
0:01:12 insights that can be derived from this
0:01:14 historical incident
0:01:15 brother Masoud the floor is all yours
0:01:19 uh thank you so much brother Bassam
0:01:22 um I would like to thank you and
0:01:23 blogging theology for inviting me on the
0:01:25 show um I'm really pleased and uh
0:01:27 excited to uh share the main insights
0:01:30 that I have regarding this topic
0:01:33 um this is
0:01:35 you know might strike a person as being
0:01:37 uh an unnecessary topic or um a lot of
0:01:42 people question why there is even a need
0:01:43 to bring this issue up which occurred so
0:01:46 many centuries ago but
0:01:49 um I believe that this presentation
0:01:52 hopes to critically assess an itch issue
0:01:56 which is uh often cited as being
0:01:58 definitive proof uh of the intellectual
0:02:02 stagnation of the ornament stratum and
0:02:05 in many quarters it is even considered
0:02:07 to be a clear manifestation of the
0:02:11 closing of the gates of each the hat so
0:02:13 I'm referring to what is often called
0:02:15 the coffee issue or controversy and it
0:02:17 is a matter of legal interests which uh
0:02:20 flooded the Muslim world in the 10th
0:02:23 Century after Hijra or the 16th century
0:02:25 CE and the main topic question that I
0:02:29 have is what legal consequences did this
0:02:33 controversy have when it arose so when
0:02:37 this issue is studied or when it's
0:02:39 presented to us at least in academic
0:02:42 circles or among popular speakers in
0:02:46 many circles we have something called a
0:02:48 conventional wisdom which is basically
0:02:50 the dominant presentation a dominant
0:02:52 thesis that is uh given to us and for
0:02:56 this issue in question the dominant
0:02:58 thesis is that
0:03:01 the scholars supposedly took a very firm
0:03:07 line against it and they were not very
0:03:11 um attuned to the drink of coffee that
0:03:13 the majority of jurists took a very firm
0:03:16 line against it and they they will tell
0:03:19 you that actually in fact the only
0:03:21 reason why we're able to drink coffee
0:03:23 today in the Muslim world at least is
0:03:26 because social Society Civil Society is
0:03:29 what stood up against the scholarly ban
0:03:32 and they overturned it and as a result
0:03:35 we are able to enjoy the freedom of
0:03:36 drinking coffee had we relied on the
0:03:39 scholars exclusively coffee would have
0:03:42 like would have likely been still
0:03:43 prohibited so this gives you very you
0:03:49 might say uh negative impression of the
0:03:52 scholarly block as a whole that Scholars
0:03:54 they're not able to properly assess
0:03:57 properly uh react to nawaza new
0:04:02 occurrences new issues that come in
0:04:03 society it's society that has to adapt
0:04:07 to these norms and try to push all of
0:04:11 the other sectors of society to go along
0:04:13 with it so this is a very negative
0:04:16 picture you know the majority of jurors
0:04:18 took a very firm line against it there
0:04:21 was only a very small circle of Scholars
0:04:23 that allowed it but the majority did not
0:04:25 allow it and for that reason you have a
0:04:27 very static retrograde uh image of the
0:04:31 scholarly body
0:04:33 my thesis though is very different it's
0:04:37 going to say that actually if we look at
0:04:40 this issue by assessing the primary
0:04:42 sources directly we're going to find
0:04:45 that in actual fact the majority of
0:04:48 jurors actually had a very positive
0:04:50 impression of coffee or a neutral
0:04:52 impression of it and they believe that
0:04:54 actually coffee
0:04:56 poses no social or moral ills in and of
0:05:00 itself and as a reason it is actually
0:05:03 it's permissible to be consumed and
0:05:07 there is no issue with somebody to drink
0:05:10 it from an Islamic standpoint
0:05:12 um
0:05:13 in addition my presentation it assesses
0:05:17 um an important rejoinder to an Evidence
0:05:20 that's often cited by the um
0:05:23 conventional wisdom
0:05:25 and they what they usually say is that
0:05:27 there's actually evidence that most
0:05:28 Scholars oppose coffee in what is called
0:05:30 the meccan assembly which I'll talk
0:05:32 about later I will show that the Mecca
0:05:34 assembly actually does not prove that
0:05:37 the majority of Scholars or all of them
0:05:39 were against coffee in actual fact it
0:05:41 proves that
0:05:43 um
0:05:44 more no prohibition could actually be
0:05:47 supported through a scholarly or legal
0:05:49 standpoint
0:05:50 um which will show inshallah at the end
0:05:51 of this presentation today
0:05:54 so the alternative thesis
0:05:58 um does not just say my alternate thesis
0:06:00 does not just say that um the majority
0:06:01 of jurists
0:06:02 um permitted coffee I also look at
0:06:04 across the Spectrum and I'm trying to
0:06:07 assess whether there were other variant
0:06:09 positions and I showed that yeah there
0:06:10 are some divergences you will find a
0:06:13 smaller cluster Scholars who sometimes
0:06:15 they
0:06:17 they might shift a bit from The View
0:06:19 permissibility by sometimes saying that
0:06:21 coffee is disliked or even something
0:06:23 that it's recommended according to one
0:06:25 particular legal uh point of view and
0:06:29 there is a minority of Scholars of
0:06:31 course that I do uh I do acknowledge
0:06:33 that there is a minority of Scholars
0:06:35 that do prohibit coffee but
0:06:38 um what I do want to point out or show
0:06:41 is that many of these positions of
0:06:44 prohibition which are often pointed out
0:06:46 do not actually give us an
0:06:50 unconditionally
0:06:51 um
0:06:52 prescribing view of this drink so in
0:06:55 fact if we look at this we're going to
0:06:58 actually notice that some of these
0:07:00 um answers from these prohibitions to
0:07:03 the prohibiting jurists they're actually
0:07:04 quite qualified by a number of
0:07:06 Provisions or they're the scholar and
0:07:10 unquestioned actually did not give a
0:07:12 definitive ruling on the topic they only
0:07:14 based their answer based on what the
0:07:16 questioner told them so if these if
0:07:18 these points are right we're actually
0:07:20 going to challenge this conventional
0:07:22 lesson the mainstream wisdom which says
0:07:24 that the majority of jurors prohibited
0:07:26 coffee I'm saying that actually it's the
0:07:28 other way around and it's not Society
0:07:31 per se that um allowed us to drink
0:07:33 coffee we cannot we must actually give a
0:07:36 lot of credit to jurists themselves so
0:07:38 that is my uh alternative thesis it puts
0:07:41 the mainstream wisdom on its head so we
0:07:44 can now
0:07:45 we're going to go across the Spectrum
0:07:47 now today and trying to um
0:07:50 give a bit of um
0:07:53 you know a bit of assessment a bit of a
0:07:55 bit of a a bird's eye view of these
0:07:58 various legal views so starting with the
0:08:02 first view we're going to look at
0:08:03 something called the um position of
0:08:06 normative desirability and that's just
0:08:08 saying what I'm just trying to say is
0:08:10 that um
0:08:11 there were a few scholars in fact who
0:08:15 believed coffee is a recommended
0:08:19 substance in a way now that does sound a
0:08:21 bit weird but what I mean by this is
0:08:24 that we're going to find some Scholars
0:08:27 who believe coffee was either a blessed
0:08:31 beverage or was a beverage that could be
0:08:32 you it was conducive to performing good
0:08:35 actions So when you say when you say
0:08:37 normative desirability you mean mustahab
0:08:40 recommended yeah we could say that yeah
0:08:42 yeah
0:08:43 um there will be some Scholars who
0:08:44 actually do say that
0:08:46 um and um I will uh point that out what
0:08:50 um but the Sufi uh but one thing that
0:08:53 I'm trying to say is that there are some
0:08:55 um
0:08:55 it is interesting to find that there
0:08:59 were a large cluster of Sufi Scholars
0:09:02 who believe that there was something
0:09:04 significant about coffee that it was a
0:09:07 type of
0:09:09 um Divine assistance from Allah a type
0:09:12 of substance that could be used in a
0:09:14 very positive manner
0:09:16 um now that might sound weird but what I
0:09:18 mean by this is that if we look at
0:09:22 um religious Aesthetics in the past they
0:09:25 they were very devoted to um worship
0:09:28 they believed they wanted to maximize
0:09:30 their worship during the night time and
0:09:33 the issue was is there a permissible way
0:09:36 to do this so there were some figures
0:09:40 who used some problematic or we might
0:09:43 say
0:09:44 um legally morally problematic
0:09:46 substances or some had to go through
0:09:48 very onerous tasks like for example it's
0:09:51 narrated that um a Shipley one of the
0:09:53 Sofia's addicts he would actually put
0:09:55 salt on his eyes to stay awake so
0:09:59 now with coffee found
0:10:03 you have something completely that could
0:10:07 raise your alertness to an unforeseen
0:10:09 level it gives you an overall
0:10:11 um increased level of energy levels for
0:10:13 acts of worship
0:10:15 um yeah without any apparent immediate
0:10:17 cause of self-harm
0:10:19 yeah so it was removing all you they
0:10:21 were able to sidestep all the problems
0:10:23 that they had in the previous substances
0:10:25 that were being used because the great
0:10:27 benefit found in coffee was that it
0:10:30 um it inhibited sleep that's what
0:10:32 allowed stuff is to devote the whole
0:10:33 night and worship by performing their
0:10:35 litanies and prayers and of course
0:10:38 because many of the first consumers of
0:10:39 coffee were devoted worshipers
0:10:42 it is no matter of surprise to find that
0:10:44 the drink was deemed as being
0:10:46 normatively desirable so it is
0:10:49 interesting to note that according to
0:10:51 many historians the sufis are credited
0:10:53 as being the discoverers and users of
0:10:55 coffee if you look at the history of it
0:10:57 um though Unfortunately today I don't
0:10:59 have
0:11:00 um it's not my area of discussion today
0:11:02 but
0:11:04 the general the because the energy and
0:11:06 vitality generated by coffee was being
0:11:09 used for exclusively religious ants by a
0:11:13 limited number of users during the early
0:11:15 years of coffee's Discovery conferring
0:11:18 the drink with the ruling of
0:11:19 recommendation was hardly a matter of
0:11:22 surprise so the view nor the
0:11:24 desirability it makes sense in the
0:11:25 regard that when coffee is first being
0:11:28 discovered it is being used in a few
0:11:31 restricted quarters it hasn't you might
0:11:33 say it hasn't spread to the major cities
0:11:35 yet it is only in some places like Yemen
0:11:37 and it's only being exclusively used by
0:11:41 Sophia sedex Scholars religiously
0:11:44 scrupulous people and of course these
0:11:47 types of users they're only mine is on
0:11:49 worship and um doing uh acts of prayer
0:11:52 performing litanies and for that reason
0:11:54 anything that ex maximizes that number
0:11:57 is going to take its ruling so
0:11:59 um it is going to help you perform that
0:12:02 end so we're going to use
0:12:04 um we're going to use it for that end so
0:12:05 we can say that it's recommended some
0:12:07 jurists they actually did appreciate
0:12:10 this perspective and they also gave it
0:12:13 they they said that yes we're going to
0:12:16 also extend this and say that it is
0:12:18 recommended and um you can find that
0:12:21 view cited by some Scholars it's
0:12:23 mentioned by a tabandawi uh sheikhal
0:12:26 muzajet
0:12:27 um they do mention some principles on
0:12:29 that regard
0:12:31 um but mostly this type of normal
0:12:34 desirability it comes from the early
0:12:36 Sufi Scholars
0:12:38 um so and that that is what is pointed
0:12:40 out by some researchers as well in
0:12:42 historians
0:12:43 but the most
0:12:46 um perspective and position I would say
0:12:49 especially from a 50 standpoint it comes
0:12:51 from the scholars who were looking at it
0:12:54 from a permissibility perspective and
0:12:57 why is it important it's because among
0:12:59 the five-point hierarchy of religious
0:13:01 rulings the majority position concerning
0:13:04 coffee was that of its permissibility
0:13:06 and the jurists we're not talking about
0:13:09 religious Aesthetics who are just
0:13:11 looking at the end of worship jurists
0:13:13 are looking at things more from a
0:13:15 technical legal standpoint and their
0:13:18 research objective is very different
0:13:20 they are looking at this topic much more
0:13:23 or less to appraising the positive
0:13:25 qualities and instead they are
0:13:26 concentrating their efforts on rebu on
0:13:29 refuting Scholars who argue towards
0:13:31 prohibition so Scholars who were trying
0:13:34 to do this
0:13:35 they were in a tug of war type of
0:13:38 position which Scholars were prohibiting
0:13:40 coffee now when you're in that type of a
0:13:43 situation
0:13:45 you need to construct the strongest
0:13:48 legal argument possible
0:13:49 you cannot simply rely on the principle
0:13:52 of original permissibility saying that
0:13:55 um the the original the the default
0:13:58 ruling of things and substances is that
0:14:01 they're permissible unless there is
0:14:03 another uh evidence that comes against
0:14:05 it they can't just rely on that because
0:14:07 you have
0:14:09 um other Scholars were saying well look
0:14:11 I've heard from some people that coffee
0:14:14 is intoxicating the name kahua in Arabic
0:14:18 was used as a descriptor of wine it was
0:14:20 used anonymously with wine and poetry in
0:14:22 the past so there is some kind of an
0:14:25 association at least Prima prima facie
0:14:27 which gives me some types of grounds to
0:14:30 uh have doubt on this so you can't just
0:14:32 rely on a simple piece of evidence like
0:14:36 so what happened then what happens is
0:14:39 that the permitting side they had to
0:14:42 resort to arguments that were
0:14:44 epistemically weightier and stronger
0:14:47 than the ones produced by the
0:14:48 programming side and the main piece of
0:14:49 evidence used for justifying the
0:14:52 permissibility of coffee was by
0:14:53 appealing to the process of
0:14:55 experimentation and this is known as a
0:14:57 tajriba a touch of a unlike witness
0:15:01 testimony
0:15:02 unlike witness testimony experimentation
0:15:05 is a source of certain and iron clad
0:15:09 knowledge so like for example
0:15:12 who's one of the main Scholars of coffee
0:15:15 is one of these sources of certain
0:15:18 knowledge it gives a certain an ironclad
0:15:21 knowledge the reason for that is because
0:15:23 once you directly consume a substance
0:15:27 multiple times
0:15:31 um you are actually able to discern its
0:15:34 side effects and what kind of properties
0:15:36 can be discerned with certainty So
0:15:39 epistemically speaking the findings that
0:15:41 are yielded through direct sensory
0:15:42 perception are far stronger than
0:15:44 anything that maybe deduced through
0:15:46 secondary channels such as witness
0:15:48 testimony or analogy and that's because
0:15:52 witness testimony only gives something
0:15:54 called
0:15:55 while experimentation provides absolute
0:15:59 certainty
0:16:01 um so yeah there are a number of
0:16:02 Scholars who use this method
0:16:05 um so for example Zakaria lansory he's
0:16:07 one of the main Scholars who did this
0:16:09 Mohammed ibnelias is another scholar who
0:16:12 did it
0:16:13 um and it's also invoked by a number of
0:16:14 other Scholars like
0:16:16 um
0:16:18 foreign
0:16:41 it's something that's recognized by
0:16:43 jurists across the board yeah it is
0:16:46 something that you'll find discussed in
0:16:48 books of logic as well um
0:16:51 is also another scholar who talks about
0:16:53 it
0:16:55 um it is something that's discussed by
0:16:56 Sheikh Abdullah a famous hanafi scholar
0:17:00 so you have Scholars across the board
0:17:02 and a chef will just leave this humbly
0:17:03 by the way so so you have scores from
0:17:05 multiple mat UPS all talking about the
0:17:07 superior epistemic warrant found in
0:17:10 experimentation
0:17:12 um and because of that it's no surprise
0:17:14 to find that several Scholars who
0:17:16 permitted coffee relied on it as a means
0:17:19 of refusing the evidence produced by the
0:17:21 providing side so looking at these
0:17:24 examples just a bit and more in detail
0:17:26 perhaps one of the most Vivid
0:17:28 illustrations of the use of this
0:17:30 procedure can be found in the case of
0:17:32 the leading Shafi jurist Zacharia
0:17:35 lanzari Ansari he ran an experiment
0:17:39 known as the bar through where he could
0:17:42 actually discern the effects of coffee
0:17:44 directly so what do we mean by
0:17:47 experimentation what did he do what he
0:17:49 did was he actually had a group of
0:17:52 guests over and what he did was he
0:17:54 actually prepared for them coffee
0:17:57 and he then
0:17:59 presented it to all of them and he
0:18:02 ordered them to all for all them to
0:18:03 consume it and after waiting for some
0:18:05 time to pass he started a conversation
0:18:08 with them he started speaking with them
0:18:09 he started to you know try to that you
0:18:12 know look at their responses can they
0:18:15 respond effectively and quickly are they
0:18:18 able to speak properly anymore what's
0:18:20 going on is there can we detect any
0:18:22 changes in their speaking patterns
0:18:25 um their comprehension or ability to
0:18:26 speak has that has it been compromised
0:18:28 and he did this multiple times he
0:18:30 checked after an hour he checked up on
0:18:33 them again he found no unusual changes
0:18:35 on them then he actually
0:18:38 repeated the process again he made more
0:18:41 coffee he increased the amount and he
0:18:44 then I once again spoke with them so
0:18:46 after doing this a few times he actually
0:18:49 was able to firmly
0:18:52 um come to the conclusion that coffee is
0:18:54 not intoxicant and I'm sorry ruled that
0:18:56 the coffee was permissible and he is
0:18:58 even recorded to have written a pamphlet
0:19:00 or a work on this topic now besides I'm
0:19:03 sorry we have another scholar who also
0:19:05 ran a meticulous experiment and this is
0:19:08 done by the Kyrene jurist and chief
0:19:11 judge Muhammad Ben Elias
0:19:13 so the context of Al hanafi's
0:19:17 experimentation is interesting because
0:19:20 it occurs in the context of a serious
0:19:24 debate on when on the permissibility of
0:19:27 coffee and he's he finds himself
0:19:31 um summoned in the midst of this
0:19:33 polarized debate and it's because you
0:19:36 during this time in Cairo there were
0:19:38 some violence occurring between the two
0:19:41 sides so there was some serious back and
0:19:44 forth occurring between the permitting
0:19:46 side and the prohibiting side and in the
0:19:48 midst of this Muhammad aliasis he said
0:19:52 you have to as your capacity as the
0:19:54 grand judge of Cairo to intervene and
0:19:57 resolve this deadlock that's occurring
0:20:00 so what did he do he said we we need to
0:20:03 find a definitive answer to this topic
0:20:05 and he also resorted to the procedure of
0:20:08 experimentation and he ensured that
0:20:11 coffee was prepared in his residence he
0:20:13 had a number of attendees sit in his
0:20:15 house he conversed with them for almost
0:20:18 a whole day giving them coffee
0:20:20 throughout this time process and he
0:20:22 wanted to probe their state of mind to
0:20:24 see if any type of changes could be
0:20:26 detected and it's even said that he he
0:20:30 not only repeated the process he even
0:20:31 started drinking coffee himself to see
0:20:33 what was going on and after not
0:20:35 observing any change like effects or
0:20:37 changes he then concluded that coffee's
0:20:40 consumption was illicit
0:20:42 the other Scholars who are listed here
0:20:44 they did not run experiments by
0:20:46 themselves like a tabandawi
0:20:49 um
0:20:51 they did not run experiments themselves
0:20:54 but what they did do was they were
0:20:57 relying on the same types of indicators
0:21:01 these types of these types of epistemic
0:21:03 indicators
0:21:04 um it is it does still fall under the
0:21:07 broad heading of experimentation in the
0:21:09 sense that they were observing society
0:21:12 around them as careful actors they were
0:21:15 looking at Coffee drinkers for example
0:21:16 in society they would say we've we've
0:21:18 looked at Coffee drinkers for a long
0:21:19 time and we don't think that they look
0:21:22 like
0:21:23 um alcoholics or people who are addicted
0:21:26 to drugs they don't look like they don't
0:21:27 appear in any sense like those people so
0:21:31 for that reason they're saying we can't
0:21:33 deduce that coffee isn't intoxicant or
0:21:35 harmful to the intellectant body so they
0:21:39 were looking they were saying that yeah
0:21:40 these These are empirical findings
0:21:42 things that are justified through the
0:21:46 external senses and perception and these
0:21:51 types of indicators when we look at
0:21:53 society around us empirically and we
0:21:56 find that there is no type of uh trance
0:21:59 or no type of um intoxication this
0:22:03 demonstrates that any supposed analogy
0:22:06 that a prohibiting scholar tries to make
0:22:08 between coffee and other intoxicants is
0:22:11 fallacious because direct sensory
0:22:13 experience reveals a number of intrinsic
0:22:16 differences between coffee and opioids
0:22:18 which bars the invocation of any type of
0:22:21 analogy
0:22:22 and they were actually saying that you
0:22:24 know our our analysis and our um
0:22:27 are
0:22:28 observed observation shows that rather
0:22:31 the case is the opposite so for example
0:22:34 um
0:22:35 um
0:22:36 he was saying that when I look at
0:22:40 scholar when I look at Coffee drinkers I
0:22:43 noticed that they're actually
0:22:45 they become more energetic they are less
0:22:48 lazy they are more prone to doing
0:22:50 they're more prone to productivity
0:22:52 whereas drugs they befuddled the mind
0:22:54 they impede one's ability to speak
0:22:57 properly
0:22:59 they cause a person to be become very
0:23:01 lazy you might say but coffee they say
0:23:03 it vitalizes the mind and body so
0:23:07 that's what they're saying in in their
0:23:09 assessment on this topic
0:23:11 now is the permissibility view
0:23:14 majoritarian so what we've done so far
0:23:16 is we've looked at some of the
0:23:18 permitting Scholars we've looked at some
0:23:20 of them
0:23:21 but now the question is
0:23:24 what evidence of any is there to support
0:23:28 the thesis that the majority of
0:23:29 Permitting Scholars were
0:23:32 were were for coffee how are we to
0:23:35 deduce that the permitting side as the
0:23:37 majority side why not just say that it's
0:23:39 a minority opinion or it's just one of
0:23:40 the many small opinions
0:23:43 um so what is their evidence for that so
0:23:45 there are some indicators which we can
0:23:47 use to deduce that coffee is the
0:23:50 permitting site on coffee was the
0:23:53 majority view so perhaps one of the
0:23:56 strongest pieces of evidence is the fact
0:23:59 that unanimous consensus was often cited
0:24:02 by scholars in favor of the permitting
0:24:05 side
0:24:06 of course
0:24:07 there is no doubt that invocations of
0:24:10 consensus are often um
0:24:12 exaggerated or they fall short and there
0:24:15 are sometimes dissenting voices that are
0:24:17 not taken into account no no doubt about
0:24:19 that
0:24:20 but without
0:24:23 um without contesting of you one should
0:24:24 at the same time acknowledge that many
0:24:28 of these citations can't still be
0:24:30 employed as evidence that there is a
0:24:32 majority out there that is deeming
0:24:35 coffee to be permissible why is that the
0:24:37 case that is because no scholar or no
0:24:41 scrupulous jurist would make such a
0:24:46 blanket statement or type of strong
0:24:49 assessment without having access to some
0:24:53 wide-ranging declarations from Scholars
0:24:55 beforehand they must have some type of
0:24:57 sufficient epistemic warrant which gave
0:25:00 them the confidence to make that type of
0:25:03 Declaration so there must be a strong
0:25:06 majority uh a strong body of Scholars
0:25:10 who's doing this or or pointing to this
0:25:12 yeah I mean you know uh I mean because
0:25:15 it's you know for someone to
0:25:18 take a minority position and say well
0:25:21 actually there's an Ishmael supporting
0:25:22 this it's such an easily falsifiable
0:25:24 coin right yeah and and correct me if
0:25:28 I'm wrong you looked into this but those
0:25:30 that did claim
0:25:32 um it was I don't think there were we
0:25:35 have any documented responses to them
0:25:37 saying what do you want on Earth are you
0:25:39 guys talking about your view is the
0:25:41 minority view this is a radically
0:25:44 radically absurd claim for you to make I
0:25:46 don't think we have any of that
0:25:48 and he got documented right in terms of
0:25:51 privateing Scholars I don't think any
0:25:52 one of them would say that or had the
0:25:55 confidence to say such a claim
0:25:57 um the only thing they could say was
0:25:59 that um we
0:26:01 they were saying we have we have a
0:26:03 strong presupposition that coffee is
0:26:06 harmful or intoxicating because we've
0:26:07 had people come to us and say that
0:26:09 they've had effects now why would
0:26:11 Witnesses do that that's another topic
0:26:12 but we do have his you know historical
0:26:15 data that points to the fact that
0:26:17 Witnesses do lie sometimes they have
0:26:20 certain incentives to do that sometimes
0:26:23 they will lie because they want to uh
0:26:25 they want to show as if they
0:26:27 they have changed their path their past
0:26:30 and they're not trying to become more uh
0:26:32 morally scrupulous so they will try to
0:26:34 you know present themselves as a
0:26:36 reformed person and uh you know
0:26:39 sometimes it is try to create a moral
0:26:40 impression of yourself sometimes the
0:26:41 people that do things like that it's not
0:26:44 surprising
0:26:45 um so yeah
0:26:47 you know
0:26:49 we we do find
0:26:51 the the citation unanimous consensus
0:26:53 they're coming only from the permitting
0:26:54 side so that this that this gives you
0:26:57 some kind of confidence that something
0:26:58 is being said or something is going on
0:27:00 it's definitely a very uh at the very
0:27:03 least a very strong circumstantial
0:27:05 argument at the very least yeah no yeah
0:27:07 that's that's definitely true I would
0:27:09 agree with that yeah
0:27:10 um the other thing to note is that
0:27:13 you had a number of very prominent
0:27:16 tourists arguably you could say more
0:27:17 prominent jurors on the permitting side
0:27:19 as opposed to the prohibiting side so
0:27:22 for example I'm sorry no like any
0:27:25 anybody who has uh knows a bit about
0:27:27 savage or students they will know that
0:27:29 what important position he had and how
0:27:31 many students he had and it was many of
0:27:34 his students who circulated his
0:27:35 permitting opinion of coffee around many
0:27:37 parts of the Islamic World which gave
0:27:39 the permitting view much more strong
0:27:42 weights
0:27:44 um you have some Scholars who mention uh
0:27:46 the names of other important figures who
0:27:49 played an important role in boosting
0:27:52 coffees reception and they were able to
0:27:55 do this through a number of devices so
0:27:57 the two main devices that were used is
0:27:59 first of all the the device of debates
0:28:02 a lot of Permitting Scholars like Abu
0:28:06 al-fat
0:28:07 they use the device of a debate in order
0:28:11 to
0:28:12 defeat the opponent's Pro that were
0:28:15 prohibiting coffee and show the
0:28:16 arguments of the preventing sides
0:28:19 and very important jurist one of the
0:28:21 scholars who very vocally was on the
0:28:24 permitting side he actually participated
0:28:27 in a number of debates he won he
0:28:29 actually defeated his opponents on them
0:28:30 he had a very famous One in Damascus in
0:28:33 the presence of the chief judge of
0:28:35 Damascus he also was a very
0:28:38 um a very skilled poet and he actually
0:28:42 composed many verses of poetry
0:28:45 demonstrating the permissibility of
0:28:48 coffee
0:28:49 he's also mentioned in some uh
0:28:53 in some pamphlets or works of poetry and
0:28:56 of course he I believe is also noted as
0:28:59 being an important Kyrene uh justice so
0:29:02 you have a number of figures here all of
0:29:05 them having occupying certain senior
0:29:07 positions
0:29:09 um very important and vocal Scholars
0:29:12 participating in debates in civil
0:29:15 society and they're able to
0:29:17 um or they were very outstanding jurors
0:29:18 who had a large number of students and
0:29:22 through these different types of
0:29:23 measures were it doesn't really become a
0:29:26 surprise of why the permitting few would
0:29:29 have so much traction so it does make
0:29:32 more sense to see this for example on
0:29:34 the preventing side on the other hand
0:29:36 you do have some names that are not very
0:29:38 well known or they're not as prominent
0:29:41 or some of them even were ridiculed
0:29:45 um I'd rather not mention them because
0:29:48 um yeah sometimes the ridiculing does
0:29:50 get a bit harsh
0:29:52 um but there is um there are some cases
0:29:53 and stories mentioned in Al jazeera's
0:29:56 work
0:29:57 um showing how some preventing Scholars
0:29:59 were did not have that much of a
0:30:01 reception they didn't enjoy that type of
0:30:04 um legitimacy among their students or
0:30:07 their peers to the extent that their
0:30:08 opinion would be given much weight and
0:30:10 on the other hand they're actually
0:30:11 sometimes even subject to mockery and
0:30:14 ridicule even so again showing the
0:30:16 weakness of the prohibiting side
0:30:19 now
0:30:20 there is another interesting position
0:30:22 which kind of it falls in between the
0:30:25 permitting View and the prohibiting View
0:30:27 and this is the position of deeming
0:30:30 coffee morally disliked now remember
0:30:33 when
0:30:35 sorry yeah so when you say morally
0:30:38 disliked we mean right yes thank you
0:30:41 yeah um you can do you can do the Arabic
0:30:44 stuff I'm uh yeah yeah it's just that
0:30:47 for you know just uh not the listeners
0:30:51 yeah it's great that's great what we're
0:30:54 talking about yeah that um it's a lot on
0:30:57 my part not to bring the uh Arabic terms
0:31:01 um
0:31:03 um so yeah it's interesting to note that
0:31:06 coffee
0:31:08 was once restricted to very religious
0:31:13 religiously vocal circles religiously
0:31:17 conscious circles like the sufis that we
0:31:19 mentioned in the beginning
0:31:20 and in that and that in that respect it
0:31:22 was used as a source of religious
0:31:24 Vitality for religious worship but over
0:31:27 time what happens is once it spreads to
0:31:30 the major cities it now becomes a
0:31:33 vehicle for amusement
0:31:36 and one of the main corollaries of
0:31:39 coffee
0:31:40 that that emerges once it goes into the
0:31:43 major cities
0:31:45 in the Muslim world is that you have
0:31:47 something called The Coffee House
0:31:49 and the coffee house is
0:31:52 it becomes a very problematic place in
0:31:56 the minds of many jurists and
0:31:59 um one of the main problems that comes
0:32:01 up there is that it was a place for
0:32:04 um intermingling of the genders there
0:32:06 was usually sometimes music sometimes
0:32:08 people are drinking alcohol there was
0:32:10 chess there was backgammon
0:32:12 um there was something called idara
0:32:13 where they were drinking coffee in a way
0:32:16 that was similar to how wine drinkers
0:32:18 would consume coffee
0:32:19 so there were some very negative there
0:32:21 were many negative associative factors
0:32:23 that were coming up and in the view many
0:32:26 jurists a person who was associating
0:32:29 themselves with the drink coffee or even
0:32:30 consuming it they were putting
0:32:32 themselves in that company even if they
0:32:33 did not intend it you're drinking
0:32:35 something that's becoming kind of the
0:32:40 the major symbol of
0:32:42 religion moral looseness so a lot of
0:32:46 jurors were saying why would you want to
0:32:47 uh you know draw any type of Link or
0:32:50 Association we're not saying there's a
0:32:52 causal link between coffee and
0:32:55 um you know being a morally problematic
0:32:57 person but we're saying that these
0:32:59 jurors were saying that you're putting
0:33:01 yourself in that company you should
0:33:03 protect your standing and uprightness as
0:33:07 a Muslim and try to
0:33:10 um refrain from these types of actions
0:33:12 so you have some jurists who mention
0:33:14 these types of opinions perhaps the most
0:33:16 famous is
0:33:18 um
0:33:19 yeah you have a number of Scholars
0:33:21 actually some of them saying that um
0:33:24 some of them were saying that like for
0:33:26 example episode for instance he's one
0:33:28 famous scholar who talks about this
0:33:31 um he says that
0:33:33 whatever the people of evil are
0:33:36 accustomed to doing
0:33:37 it does not be fit somebody of you know
0:33:41 of proper standing to
0:33:43 um
0:33:43 partake in
0:33:45 something to that effect he says in one
0:33:47 of his fat to us so you have this
0:33:50 position saying that you have to be very
0:33:52 careful you should not
0:33:54 um put associate yourselves with this so
0:33:58 this position actually did have some
0:34:00 popularity it was
0:34:01 um mentioned by a number of jurists
0:34:04 um and their legal reasoning
0:34:07 um is fairly apparent but it's
0:34:09 interesting that despite them talking
0:34:11 about the negative associative factors
0:34:13 they weren't they were
0:34:15 um
0:34:16 careful to stress that they were not
0:34:19 giving a an opinion on the inherent
0:34:22 properties of coffee they're not saying
0:34:24 that it's prohibited in and of itself
0:34:25 they're saying that we're looking at the
0:34:28 outside factors that are commonly
0:34:30 intermingling with coffee so because of
0:34:32 this common mixture we're now going to
0:34:34 have to be very wary of this so you know
0:34:36 some Scholars they might say it's
0:34:37 certain religious gatherings or sittings
0:34:39 in certain places or certain contexts
0:34:41 are okay but they say but now when we
0:34:44 see a lot of morally problematic things
0:34:45 happening in them we're going to start
0:34:48 to be more careful about them like as an
0:34:50 example sometimes you do see that
0:34:51 happening
0:34:53 um then you have something called the
0:34:55 The prohibitionist View which usually is
0:34:58 the first opinion that comes up and
0:35:00 mentioned in many places but now you in
0:35:02 this um lecture we're actually looking
0:35:04 at it the other way around now The
0:35:07 prohibitionist View
0:35:10 a few things that a few important things
0:35:12 to mention is that the first important
0:35:13 thing to mention is that um there are
0:35:17 without any doubts some Scholars who
0:35:19 were prohibitionists you know there are
0:35:22 it is documented that some stars were
0:35:24 firm prohibitionists but
0:35:27 an important thing to know is that the
0:35:29 lists that we are often presented with
0:35:32 are sometimes quite inflated arguably
0:35:38 we cannot with firm certainty say that
0:35:41 all the scholars who are deemed to be
0:35:43 fervent opponents of coffee
0:35:46 or were in fact
0:35:49 opposed to the the drink in fully and
0:35:53 unquestionably we can't say that
0:35:56 and the reason for that is because
0:35:59 context matters
0:36:02 you know simply puts when we when we
0:36:04 look at these answers we have to note
0:36:06 that their fat to us most of the times
0:36:08 most of these answers that were being
0:36:09 presented with their religious verdicts
0:36:11 that were being posed to them by certain
0:36:14 questioners
0:36:15 now when you look at these answers
0:36:19 one cannot one cannot and should not
0:36:21 just look at the answer being provided
0:36:24 one has to also look at the question
0:36:27 itself and how is the question being
0:36:29 posed to them what is being told tada
0:36:33 this is an important um
0:36:35 jurisprudential principle that's given
0:36:37 in the area of answering verdicts
0:36:40 and the reason why
0:36:43 we have to look at the question is
0:36:48 because the Juris consult the person
0:36:51 who's giving the answer the Mufti he has
0:36:54 to depend on the information provided to
0:36:56 them
0:36:58 there is a firm connection thus between
0:37:01 how the questioner's query is worded and
0:37:04 the type of response that is ultimately
0:37:06 issued by the scholaring that is
0:37:08 answering and this Nexus is often
0:37:12 articulated through an important
0:37:13 principle which is known as
0:37:17 the principle that the Juris consult is
0:37:19 the prisoner of the questioner and
0:37:22 essentially
0:37:23 this Axiom it embodies an important
0:37:26 convention that the Juris consult
0:37:28 response must be in proportion to and
0:37:31 correspond to the information provided
0:37:33 by the questioner and not go beyond it
0:37:36 and in fact there are some Scholars that
0:37:38 say that this principle is so strong and
0:37:42 firm in its uh in its force that the
0:37:47 jurist who's answering has to actually
0:37:50 respond exactly based on what the
0:37:53 questioner says even if they believe
0:37:55 that the information provided does not
0:37:57 fully correspond to reality
0:37:59 so these types of conventions
0:38:03 and the force that they have on these
0:38:05 Scholars who are answering and giving
0:38:06 supposedly or apparently prohibiting
0:38:09 answers they actually give us a
0:38:12 completely different
0:38:14 um perspective
0:38:17 and that's because when we look at these
0:38:18 questions we'll notice that many of
0:38:21 these jurists who supposedly deemed
0:38:23 coffee to be prohibited they formulated
0:38:25 their answers
0:38:27 in response to questions that had some
0:38:31 very inaccurate or even blatantly false
0:38:38 um point of information regarding coffee
0:38:41 so I hate Steve observers just go look
0:38:44 at the answer and be like oh look they
0:38:45 said it's prevalent but if you look at
0:38:46 the question you're going to say well
0:38:47 did these jurors really have a point
0:38:49 like a chance to say anything else
0:38:51 besides prohibition the second look
0:38:54 tells us that the text of many of these
0:38:56 questions had
0:38:57 um very problematic points of
0:38:59 information they were saying that coffee
0:39:01 is harmful to the Mind harmful to the
0:39:04 body coffee is an intoxicant they were
0:39:06 saying that coffee drinkers they don't
0:39:08 work they don't do this they're morally
0:39:10 problematic people
0:39:11 they go to sinful settings they do this
0:39:13 they do that nothing positive mentioned
0:39:16 about coffee so what with such a
0:39:18 one-sided and misleading description of
0:39:21 the drink especially when you're telling
0:39:22 people that coffee is an intoxicant
0:39:25 um it's causing these types of problems
0:39:26 to the mind
0:39:27 these jurors really didn't have a choice
0:39:29 they couldn't really give us a positive
0:39:32 response on coffee and they were they
0:39:33 would say okay well if this you know I
0:39:35 haven't seen coffee but if this is how
0:39:38 you're describing it and you're saying
0:39:39 to me that it's like this then
0:39:41 if that's the case then it's prohibited
0:39:45 now something important though is that
0:39:48 these jurists they couldn't say coffee
0:39:50 is permitted based on the convention
0:39:52 Convention of al-mufti asir al-mustafi
0:39:55 but interestingly many of these jurists
0:39:58 were very Vigilant in their replies they
0:40:01 they ensured that their answers were
0:40:03 qualified and perhaps the most important
0:40:06 thing is that they would render their
0:40:09 questions in the conditional sense so
0:40:12 they would say they would meticulously
0:40:13 phrase their Answers by saying that if
0:40:15 you can establish that coffee indeed
0:40:17 intoxicates then the ruling of
0:40:19 prohibition is warranted so the use of
0:40:22 the conditional sentence structure has a
0:40:25 lot of importance in legal quarters
0:40:27 since it only brings forth a qualified
0:40:30 answer so because this has an inference
0:40:33 to it the inferred understanding from
0:40:36 such a response is that if coffee does
0:40:38 not intoxicate then it should actually
0:40:41 be deemed permissible so if you take the
0:40:43 wording of the questions account one
0:40:45 cannot actually conclude that these
0:40:47 jurists were firm prohibitionists in
0:40:49 fact you might say that if these jurors
0:40:52 were given the rightful pieces of
0:40:54 information they might have actually
0:40:55 been neutral about coffee like okay it's
0:40:58 permit it so that's why you have this
0:41:00 important um quotation or citation from
0:41:03 Al jazeer and what he's saying is that
0:41:06 he gives us a number of answers from
0:41:08 fatwas from Scholars saying that
0:41:10 all of them are saying if it's like this
0:41:12 when it is like this if it's established
0:41:14 to be like this then it's prohibited so
0:41:16 he's giving he gave a number of
0:41:18 conditional responses from Scholars and
0:41:20 he said that when you look at these
0:41:22 fatawas
0:41:23 you will see that actually they put all
0:41:27 of the um they shift all of the burden
0:41:30 on the questioner saying that you are
0:41:32 held to account you know so it's known
0:41:34 as a he's a it's it's
0:41:38 comes from the questioner so they're
0:41:40 they're they're Shifting the burden of
0:41:43 responsibility on the description that's
0:41:45 provided by the questioner saying that
0:41:46 you hold the responsibility for what you
0:41:48 said if you're right then okay it's
0:41:51 prohibited if you're not right then okay
0:41:53 you'll you turn out to be lying and our
0:41:56 answer if it's wrong it's based on the
0:41:58 misleading information you've provided
0:42:00 so so al-jaziri says you can't really
0:42:04 benefit from these answers and say that
0:42:06 these coffee these Scholars were
0:42:07 prohibitionists so yeah he's giving this
0:42:10 an important
0:42:12 um legalistic reading of these fatwas
0:42:15 and I think we could only speculate as
0:42:19 to what was going on there with the
0:42:21 questioners themselves right like were
0:42:23 they sincerely mistaken when they framed
0:42:26 these questions or was there some kind
0:42:28 of I don't know hidden agenda I guess we
0:42:31 can't we can only speculate but as you
0:42:34 said you know the if these Scholars
0:42:37 themselves did not do
0:42:41 um these experiments like how other
0:42:43 Scholars have have done
0:42:45 um I guess the only thing they could do
0:42:47 is rely on the question and how it's
0:42:50 framed
0:42:51 yeah the point about the questioners
0:42:53 it's kind of it's very fascinating
0:42:56 um in the sense that
0:42:58 we can't of course make some firm uh
0:43:00 conclusions on them but
0:43:05 um
0:43:06 scholar who
0:43:09 um has some important points about
0:43:11 um why these types of things occur he
0:43:13 said that um he said that's often the
0:43:15 case that
0:43:17 prohibitionists of certain substances
0:43:19 they're usually more morally cautious
0:43:21 um they usually have they want to take a
0:43:23 harder stance and sometimes they're on
0:43:25 the minority sides and he says as a
0:43:29 tactic to boost their numbers what
0:43:31 they'll do is day or day or they will
0:43:34 take other people on board and they will
0:43:36 try to post misleading questions
0:43:39 and procure fat was a Prohibition from
0:43:43 other Scholars and that way they'll be
0:43:44 able to boost their numbers at least
0:43:46 apparently so it's a type of tactic to
0:43:49 you use to in order to improve your you
0:43:53 know your numbers so to speak and try to
0:43:56 improve your vision your your reception
0:43:58 in the minds of people assessing the
0:44:00 debate so now people are looking at her
0:44:02 to be like we'll be like oh looks more
0:44:04 like a closer to parody type of position
0:44:06 with the two sides are fairly more or
0:44:08 less balanced
0:44:18 and that's what a lot of people tend to
0:44:20 do and they they tend to ignore the
0:44:22 details uh that are there within the
0:44:25 fatwa and and honestly I mean I don't
0:44:27 want to digress but I've you know even
0:44:30 raised this issue on on separate
0:44:32 subjects where people would appeal
0:44:36 I don't want to digress too much but
0:44:37 it's giving one very quick example when
0:44:39 it comes to you know Muslims living in
0:44:42 the west right A lot of people would say
0:44:44 oh well you know the majority of
0:44:46 Scholars said it's it's permissible but
0:44:49 they they ignore all the conditions that
0:44:50 Scholars attach when they say that right
0:44:53 I don't want to digress but but it's
0:44:56 it's it's something that goes on till
0:44:58 today right no I think that's a great
0:45:00 example people let's say even when we're
0:45:02 talking about Islamic Finance when we're
0:45:04 talking about they you know oh yeah this
0:45:06 has said that it's perfectly fine
0:45:07 to take uh you know so and so alone this
0:45:09 chick said it's so okay to do this it's
0:45:11 okay to do that
0:45:12 and they're looking at the final answer
0:45:14 and they fail to look at the question
0:45:16 and the way it's been worded and whether
0:45:19 that specific country or that specific
0:45:21 bank applies to the same bank that he's
0:45:24 inquiring about or the country that he
0:45:26 lives in and whatnot so this is an
0:45:29 ongoing problem and what you're
0:45:31 highlighting is just something it's just
0:45:33 one of one of the cases which that
0:45:35 occurs oh that's great I think those
0:45:37 examples are really good because the uh
0:45:40 um they're I think they're much more
0:45:41 relevant especially in modern circles as
0:45:44 opposed to today
0:45:45 um yeah but exactly
0:45:48 he says that
0:45:50 any um any fatwa
0:45:53 that you're looking at and there's when
0:45:55 you when you when you see these types of
0:45:56 rulings you have to be very careful in
0:45:58 assessing the question as well and
0:46:01 assessing the exact wording of the
0:46:03 question as well because if they're if
0:46:04 they're wording it in a converting it in
0:46:06 a conditional manner then they're
0:46:08 essentially telling you if if they're
0:46:09 saying if if x then y then they're
0:46:11 saying if if it's not X then it's not y
0:46:13 it's not the same rule does not apply so
0:46:15 you some people just look at the effect
0:46:18 or the consequence side or saying oh
0:46:20 it's just why just why continuously but
0:46:22 they're not looking at that first part
0:46:23 the conditional sense so they're just
0:46:26 looking at the effect side they're not
0:46:27 looking at the cause
0:46:29 um
0:46:31 an interesting thing to note is that um
0:46:34 this type of
0:46:37 conditional reading and this type of
0:46:40 um provisional answer can even be
0:46:43 detected in the most firmest of
0:46:46 prohibitionists so when we talk about
0:46:49 prohibitionists of coffee probably the
0:46:51 most famous name that comes up is uh uh
0:46:55 the most he's the most prevalent name
0:46:58 he's the most sighted name he's brought
0:46:59 up everywhere uh somebody is the name
0:47:02 that's always brought up
0:47:04 now the question is
0:47:07 as is it somebody a prohibitionist well
0:47:11 if some of his answers when you look at
0:47:12 them yeah they are fairly explicit but
0:47:15 you'll find that there's actually a
0:47:19 strong degree of discussion even on his
0:47:22 view of it so for example on in one of
0:47:25 his answers and this is cited by uh he's
0:47:28 not the one saying that he's signing
0:47:29 another scholar who is reading it
0:47:33 um it was a side discussion so um this
0:47:35 other scholar he's saying when I look at
0:47:37 somebody's answers I actually find that
0:47:40 some of them are conditional so he says
0:47:41 and I want his answer he says if coffee
0:47:44 is intoxicating then it is deemed as
0:47:45 impure and then it is prohibited
0:47:48 but the the answer the answer is wording
0:47:53 it's conditional Clauses show that if
0:47:55 the cause turns out to be non-existent
0:47:59 I.E intoxication or impurity or whatever
0:48:02 then the consequent ruling will also
0:48:04 cease to exist as well
0:48:06 so some Scholars saying
0:48:09 even as somebody's answers do not give
0:48:12 us the license to deem him to be a
0:48:15 probationist this is fascinating because
0:48:17 if we apply this test to a number of the
0:48:20 fatwas that are cited for Scholars who
0:48:22 are deemed to be quote unquote
0:48:23 prohibitionists if we apply the same
0:48:25 test we're actually going to find that
0:48:27 the same result is going to be found
0:48:28 that there are most of their answers are
0:48:30 conditional and they're saying that
0:48:33 those those
0:48:34 um presumed causes turn out to be untrue
0:48:37 and for that reason we can't continue to
0:48:39 hold on to them so what does this mean
0:48:41 it means the number of prohibitions are
0:48:42 going to decrease substantially
0:48:44 the number of two professionals
0:48:47 yeah because if you because because even
0:48:48 if you think about it and thinking about
0:48:51 it from the perspective of the jurist
0:48:53 himself right uh if we have just a very
0:48:57 basic understanding
0:48:59 of of the usual and maxims that jurists
0:49:03 work with in their respective meth hubs
0:49:06 and we then let us assume that someone
0:49:10 framed the question correctly to them
0:49:12 look there's this dream called coffee
0:49:14 increases vitality it gives you an
0:49:16 energy boost it does not cause you to
0:49:18 get drunk does not make you lazy does
0:49:21 not have any of these Associated harms
0:49:23 what is the outcome of it now put let's
0:49:27 put ourselves in their shoes and think
0:49:30 on what possible basis
0:49:32 get you know uh given the maxims that
0:49:35 they typically uh work with would they
0:49:37 even declare it right and and so uh you
0:49:41 know and and I guess that that's the way
0:49:43 we should be looking at it um and uh
0:49:45 because you know you can't expect
0:49:48 every single scholar
0:49:51 to
0:49:52 engage in the sort of experimentation
0:49:55 that you know uh imamsari engaged in
0:49:58 right because they're also busy dealing
0:50:01 with
0:50:02 thousands of other no assets and and so
0:50:05 many other issues right and they're
0:50:06 probably engaging in experiments and
0:50:08 those issues though you can't have a
0:50:10 scholar who is a full-fledged expert on
0:50:13 every single Nazi that were on every
0:50:15 single newly arising issue and so these
0:50:19 sorts of conditional responses
0:50:21 are
0:50:23 um uh are are necessary and are expected
0:50:26 and it is up to the God-fearing person
0:50:29 who is reading these the fatwa uh to to
0:50:33 to appreciate that and to make sure that
0:50:36 he's not just skipping to the to the
0:50:37 final answer and actually reading the
0:50:38 entire answer
0:50:40 oh yeah I think that's uh the the points
0:50:42 you brought up are very fascinating I
0:50:44 think the most important one is the the
0:50:46 one you said that about um
0:50:48 if you mention a positive or just give a
0:50:50 neutral account of coffee Scholars are
0:50:52 going to permit it and I thought that
0:50:54 was interesting because if you read Al
0:50:56 jazeery's book he actually that's all
0:50:58 jaziri's book it's um it's the most
0:51:00 famous
0:51:02 this is
0:51:04 he he actually
0:51:07 um it's a full-fledged account of the
0:51:09 history of coffee and the legal debates
0:51:12 concerning it and he cites the questions
0:51:14 that were given for these fatuas now
0:51:17 it's interesting that you thought you
0:51:18 you brought about the issue about the
0:51:20 neutral rulings uh the neutral questions
0:51:22 because if you look at the answers that
0:51:24 are given that are positive for coffee
0:51:26 or permitting that they say oh it's
0:51:28 permissible the questions are framed in
0:51:30 a very in that type of uh proper manner
0:51:32 the way you use you know coffee this is
0:51:34 the drink which people drink it it gives
0:51:36 this type of energy
0:51:39 um is this okay is this intoxication it
0:51:42 gives energy it doesn't stunt the mind
0:51:45 um people are more productive against
0:51:47 the type of energy not they're not
0:51:48 nothing misleading Dennis got to say
0:51:50 yeah it's okay it's fine yeah so there's
0:51:52 a clear-cut direct or correlation so if
0:51:56 we were to like make a table and bring
0:51:59 all the fatawas of prohibiting it
0:52:01 on one side and the questions that were
0:52:04 asked that you know that that kind of uh
0:52:07 you know uh provoked that that that
0:52:09 prohibition and then got all the fatawa
0:52:12 that permitted it and got the questions
0:52:15 that you know uh provoke those those
0:52:17 fatawa we would see a clear distinction
0:52:21 between the questions that were asked
0:52:22 forgot the answer the actual questions
0:52:25 so so yeah there's a clear-cut direct
0:52:27 correlation I guess the questions I'm
0:52:30 sorry for interrupting but no um I know
0:52:32 you're talking about the the jurists
0:52:34 that uh permitted it and we saw that you
0:52:37 know there were enough there were
0:52:38 hanabida there were so it wasn't
0:52:42 um kind of
0:52:43 um uh interlinked with a particular
0:52:46 method but when it came to the
0:52:47 prohibitionist
0:52:49 you
0:52:50 um do you feel that there was any kind
0:52:53 of connection with a certain medhab and
0:52:57 the prohibitionist view like did you see
0:52:58 that were you real did you realize that
0:53:01 or maybe the hanabila or maybe the
0:53:04 um malikis were more prone to uh
0:53:08 declaring it uh Haram or you didn't
0:53:11 observe any sort of correlation between
0:53:13 the two oh that's a that's a fascinating
0:53:16 question to be so to be honest um
0:53:19 um the first answer in terms of the
0:53:21 permitting Scholars I would say that um
0:53:24 most of the scholars that you come
0:53:26 across on the permitting side are from
0:53:28 the the chef very Scholars that kind of
0:53:31 makes sense because
0:53:32 um you know you had a lot of Chef face
0:53:33 colors in the hijas and a lot of these
0:53:36 areas where coffee was spreading
0:53:38 um you also had a lot of major prime
0:53:40 prime prominent chirangerists who are
0:53:43 also of the chef every month up who are
0:53:45 permitting it and so that's not um the
0:53:48 shocking part but in terms of the
0:53:51 prohibiting jurists I don't necessarily
0:53:55 see a lot of uh correlation per se
0:54:00 um and that's even if you do see them as
0:54:03 prohibitionists now the interesting
0:54:05 thing is that you do have um this
0:54:07 memorandum which is sent to some
0:54:09 scholars in Cairo and
0:54:12 it's the question was misleading of
0:54:15 course it's not it's a machine question
0:54:16 and the scholars who were all um
0:54:19 prohibiting it or giving these
0:54:22 conditional answers of prohibition they
0:54:24 were from uh the various math hubs there
0:54:27 wasn't anything that suggested that
0:54:30 because they're all being told it's
0:54:31 intoxicating right so they're like yeah
0:54:34 they're all just saying okay yeah if
0:54:35 it's intoxicating okay so I guess the
0:54:37 the the primary determinant Factor here
0:54:39 in influencing the fatwa was the nature
0:54:42 of the question itself yeah and the
0:54:45 level of knowledge that the respective
0:54:48 scholar in question had directly of of
0:54:51 coffee otherwise there's nothing
0:54:53 particular about the fool
0:54:56 um uh uh about uh of a particular
0:55:00 juristic school that would have made it
0:55:03 more prone to prohibiting uh coffee if
0:55:06 understood correctly
0:55:08 um I was trying to get drive at I guess
0:55:11 yeah I I don't necessarily see much of
0:55:15 uh
0:55:16 any type of uh disparity in the the
0:55:19 probe the prohibition prohibiting voices
0:55:21 because they're all just being uh given
0:55:24 this um they're giving they're giving
0:55:25 the most uh
0:55:27 the most strong of claims against it the
0:55:30 most strong of uh prohibitory factors
0:55:32 are being alleged in their end in their
0:55:35 questions so they're kind of forced to
0:55:37 uh they're they're pushed to a corner
0:55:38 and they're going to be like okay that's
0:55:40 the case then uh we really can't do much
0:55:42 about it so great yeah
0:55:48 um interesting question I I might have
0:55:51 to look back into that but right now um
0:55:52 right now I can't see anything come up
0:55:55 um interesting question
0:55:58 um the last topic to discuss today is
0:56:02 the um the meccan assembly
0:56:04 so the meccan assembly it's one of the
0:56:08 most important episodes which is cited
0:56:12 to supposedly demonstrate
0:56:15 um the claim that coffee was deemed
0:56:17 prohibited by the majority of Scholars
0:56:19 this famous assembly occurs
0:56:22 in 917 after Hydro uh but corresponding
0:56:26 to 1511 CE and in this famous meeting of
0:56:30 several senior jurors convened by the
0:56:32 meccan governor
0:56:33 the written approval of all major
0:56:36 Scholars of the city was obtained for
0:56:39 the ban of the drink
0:56:40 so yeah this happened as a fact you have
0:56:42 these
0:56:43 all these Scholars saying okay we agree
0:56:46 coffee is prohibited
0:56:49 they did that that happened it's true
0:56:53 but if we look at the um the background
0:56:57 of the events we'll notice that
0:56:59 these answers that are being given
0:57:01 they're not consensual per se they were
0:57:03 not actually issued by these jurists
0:57:06 through their own will they were
0:57:08 actually in more or less obtained
0:57:11 through Force
0:57:13 um so the standard narrative is telling
0:57:15 us that oh no all these colors agree on
0:57:17 it well the real thing to say is
0:57:20 actually is this really the case
0:57:24 is it really the case that this was a
0:57:26 mutually agreed upon determination by
0:57:28 all these Scholars
0:57:30 um Senator standard narrative is looking
0:57:32 at the consequence they're saying yeah
0:57:34 all these Scholars wrote this which is
0:57:35 true it's true they did that but did
0:57:38 they actually agree on it
0:57:41 the standard narrative
0:57:43 points out is
0:57:46 quite faulty
0:57:48 because it hides and conceals many of
0:57:51 the tensions that were found within the
0:57:55 trial or the mechanism the assembly
0:57:57 itself and al-jazeer he does a like you
0:58:01 might say a proper um
0:58:03 step-by-step assessment of
0:58:06 the historical background of this and
0:58:08 what he tells us is
0:58:10 what occurred was you had a few small a
0:58:14 small group of chauvinistic tourist
0:58:18 jurors who had a very strong
0:58:20 um
0:58:22 position against coffee
0:58:24 who banded together with a few doctors
0:58:27 who also did not like coffee
0:58:30 uh we can presume why there are a few
0:58:33 reasons why they all sat together they
0:58:36 said we're all going to go to the
0:58:37 American governor and we're going to
0:58:40 convince them that the coffee this
0:58:42 coffee is a terrible substance it should
0:58:44 be banned it has these moral and
0:58:46 problematic consequences let's get it
0:58:48 banned I was I I was wondering if you
0:58:51 could uh enlighten me about what
0:58:54 why why would there be some doctors that
0:58:58 that had a ax to grind against coffee
0:59:02 so there's a lot to speculate on that
0:59:05 but um there are some Scholars who
0:59:08 assess this issue they they say that um
0:59:11 coffee when it first emerged it was
0:59:13 deemed to be a type of miracle drug or a
0:59:16 type of substance that um had a it was a
0:59:19 remedy it was deemed to be a remedy for
0:59:22 many illnesses and ailments
0:59:25 and it was actually being prescribed for
0:59:27 a whole lot of uh different problems
0:59:30 it could actually be used as a treatment
0:59:31 option so a lot of people are drinking
0:59:33 coffee or using it uh as a type of
0:59:35 medication now if you're a doctor
0:59:39 you are going to see this as a type of
0:59:42 threat to your craft if you're a Doctor
0:59:44 Who's uh whose job is to prescribe
0:59:47 medications for ill patients and you're
0:59:50 making medications for these types of uh
0:59:52 ailments and now you see something being
0:59:55 called coffee coming around which is now
0:59:57 getting more freely accessible
1:00:00 and the your drugs are no longer in that
1:00:04 strong of a demand then you feel that
1:00:08 you're actually under some type of
1:00:10 pressure and it it does become
1:00:14 within your interests to actually seek a
1:00:17 wholesale ban of it now this is of
1:00:19 course one possible reading of it but it
1:00:21 is it does make sense to a large extent
1:00:24 um it's similar to modern day lobbying
1:00:28 by pharmaceutical companies
1:00:33 it's an interesting um uh alliance
1:00:37 between Scholars and jurists as our
1:00:39 jurists and doctors all getting together
1:00:41 saying we're going to prep coffee they
1:00:44 get the American governor on their side
1:00:46 uh higher big higher big he then
1:00:50 um
1:00:51 gathers all of the jurists in a very
1:00:54 hastily uh in a very Hasty fashion and
1:00:58 you see that
1:01:00 um the assembly itself is quite biased
1:01:03 why is it biased because
1:01:05 higher big is getting all these jurors
1:01:08 together and basically the whole forum
1:01:11 is an opportunity for the
1:01:14 prohibitionists to
1:01:16 present their arguments against coffee
1:01:18 nowhere in this assembly do we have any
1:01:21 documentation which shows that the
1:01:23 permitting Scholars had a chance to give
1:01:25 their own opinions this is not a neutral
1:01:28 Forum uh you see there there's a careful
1:01:31 investigation reveals that the Gathering
1:01:33 was not a balanced setting where
1:01:37 different perspectives were heard in
1:01:39 fact it was more it was just a
1:01:40 prohibitionists giving their different
1:01:41 arguments
1:01:45 you know we can't claim to look into
1:01:48 anyone's heart but do you think a fire
1:01:52 big was coming from a genuine place and
1:01:55 that he was sincerely convinced that
1:01:58 this was an actual you know a harmful
1:02:00 substance and that he just
1:02:02 really thought that he was you know
1:02:05 um prohibiting the vice here forbidding
1:02:08 the vice and he just wanted to
1:02:09 immediately
1:02:11 um Outlaw it or
1:02:14 um or or you know uh was there some
1:02:18 other
1:02:19 ulterior motive uh in that
1:02:22 uh I don't know I'm not you know I'm not
1:02:24 sure but uh but I I would figure that if
1:02:26 he if there was some sort of genuine
1:02:29 concern that he would at least want to
1:02:30 hear the what the other side has to say
1:02:34 yeah that's those are some very
1:02:36 interesting uh questions
1:02:38 um I left them unanswered because yeah
1:02:40 there it is it would be speculative on
1:02:42 my part but
1:02:43 um there are Scholars who noted that um
1:02:47 interesting interestingly enough you
1:02:49 brought about the more the trying to
1:02:51 present yourself as a morally conscious
1:02:53 ruler
1:02:54 hire big tried to do that and he um Al
1:02:57 Jazeera points out he made a fake story
1:02:59 saying that um so so if we're gonna
1:03:03 we're gonna do this in detail it's
1:03:04 actually interesting higher big he he's
1:03:09 a meccan governor he is
1:03:12 he's the administrator of the city he is
1:03:15 in charge of the markets he's the
1:03:17 supervisor of the markets he's aware of
1:03:19 the ins and outs of the city
1:03:21 coffee has been in circulation in Mecca
1:03:24 by the time higher big is in power you
1:03:26 know we're looking at 15 11. coffee's
1:03:28 already been in this city for decades in
1:03:30 the in the in the sacred city of Mecca
1:03:33 it's already been around for decades
1:03:34 prior Al Jazeera says
1:03:37 interestingly enough higher big when he
1:03:40 writes the account of what happened he
1:03:42 says that oh he was he was going on he
1:03:46 was doing tawaf around the Kaaba
1:03:48 and he sees a group of coffee drinkers
1:03:53 um drinking coffee in a way mimicking
1:03:55 wine with these Special cups that are
1:03:58 used for wine like goblets and they are
1:04:00 doing the idara which is a type of
1:04:03 passing around the cup which is a manner
1:04:05 of wine very embellished the language
1:04:08 very exaggerated language and al-jazeer
1:04:10 is saying this is just a lie like higher
1:04:12 big is the line I'm seriously it's like
1:04:14 first I said you're the most about the
1:04:15 city you've been in charge of this city
1:04:17 for a long time coffee's been around in
1:04:19 the markets for a long time and you're
1:04:20 now saying oh the first time I'm seeing
1:04:22 coffee and people are drinking it in a
1:04:24 simple way in the nearby the Kaaba
1:04:27 you're presenting yourself as a very
1:04:29 morally conscious ruler who's doing why
1:04:32 I mention that like this is why are you
1:04:35 mentioning this
1:04:36 um and you're now saying that you that
1:04:38 the ruler was alarmed to see people
1:04:40 drinking coffee in this manner like wine
1:04:45 um he wants to sensationalize it by
1:04:48 saying look what's even happening in the
1:04:49 Haram like these people have no shame no
1:04:52 sense of Shame and they're they're doing
1:04:55 this in the Haram itself yeah so he's
1:04:57 presenting this on a very
1:04:58 sensationalized manner very embellished
1:05:00 Manner and and you actually yeah he says
1:05:04 this is false because he's you're trying
1:05:06 to tell us that after so many years of
1:05:07 being them you now notice that there's
1:05:09 something called coffee no you you
1:05:11 should have noticed this a long time ago
1:05:12 before and now you're morally Allah
1:05:15 you're alarmed so now you get the
1:05:16 Gathering up and you're saying coffee
1:05:18 has to be president says that's not true
1:05:20 the real true cause is that you had
1:05:23 these the the decision was already made
1:05:25 before the form was set you had this you
1:05:28 know quote unquote lobbying you had this
1:05:31 Juris doctor Alliance hire big was set
1:05:33 on board now why would higher big want a
1:05:35 private coffee then if it's not moral
1:05:37 reason well there's another mechanism
1:05:40 that could be brought up
1:05:42 um you know it's hard to believe that
1:05:44 Arabic himself would just agree based on
1:05:46 medical reasons you know what doctors or
1:05:48 singer jurors are saying
1:05:50 another possible cause is that um
1:05:52 This was um hire big was a um a governor
1:05:57 who was working under the supervision of
1:06:02 the mamluk sultanate and the mamuk
1:06:04 sultan was added to Nader it was near
1:06:07 its Eclipse
1:06:09 um the last of the salt mamluk Sultans
1:06:12 who was in power at this time
1:06:14 and just in a few years the moment
1:06:16 sultanate would actually uh disintegrate
1:06:19 and it'll be conquered so in this type
1:06:21 of uh um politically
1:06:25 very
1:06:26 um tumultuous periods
1:06:29 as a governor you're going to be very
1:06:31 cautious of what's happening and I think
1:06:33 one of the things that higher big was
1:06:35 probably worried about was the coffee
1:06:37 house being a site of political dissent
1:06:41 or political organization against them
1:06:44 because this was a political political
1:06:46 you know a state of political turmoil
1:06:49 you your power is not firmly in your
1:06:52 hand coffee houses are places where
1:06:54 people of all types gather together they
1:06:57 can hold political discussions they can
1:06:58 hold anything together and so for that
1:07:02 it does make sense for a ruler to be
1:07:04 very suspicious of it because the coffee
1:07:06 house could be type of an underground
1:07:07 you know you can say it's for amusement
1:07:09 but it could actually be a place for
1:07:11 discussions like you know you know if
1:07:13 you look at um the political salons that
1:07:15 were happening in the time of
1:07:18 just before the French Revolution for
1:07:20 instance so yeah something like that
1:07:22 could have moved the governor to be on
1:07:25 this
1:07:26 band together yeah but this is all
1:07:29 speculation uh nothing firmly sat on
1:07:32 Stone that could uh prove this the only
1:07:34 thing to prove though is that IBN hajr
1:07:38 they both um they both say that higher
1:07:41 big was not a morally scrupulous ruler
1:07:43 he was not somebody because he you know
1:07:46 um Al Jazeera actually cites a few
1:07:47 stories of Arabic uh arbitrarily killing
1:07:50 people
1:07:51 um he was yeah he was known for his
1:07:54 cruelty so they're saying it's hard for
1:07:56 us to believe that a ruler doing these
1:07:58 types of things would be so moved by
1:08:02 coffee and of course the embellished
1:08:03 account tells Al jazeer that I don't
1:08:05 believe in US
1:08:07 yeah so hello Adam hello hello
1:08:12 um but yeah the the other problematic
1:08:15 thing is though that if it was a really
1:08:16 fair session he would have um
1:08:20 given the permitting view a voice so
1:08:23 what happens in the assembly itself what
1:08:26 I'm in the assembly is that the um the
1:08:28 pro bidding Scholars they get together
1:08:31 and they say what is your view on coffee
1:08:34 what should happen with coffee
1:08:37 the jurists who are sitting
1:08:40 they try to strike a balance on this
1:08:43 issue they said coffee by itself in and
1:08:46 of itself is a permanent substance but
1:08:50 within the sinful setting of coffee
1:08:52 houses it's prohibited so they're saying
1:08:54 well look we we prohibit coffee houses
1:08:56 we're against them but coffee in and of
1:08:59 itself it's an okay substance it's pure
1:09:01 and it's permitted
1:09:03 so they're like okay like what why don't
1:09:05 we just end it here
1:09:07 this is when the prohibitionists the
1:09:09 prohibitionists block they said no no
1:09:12 we're gonna we don't want that we want
1:09:13 actually a firm wholesale prohibition of
1:09:16 coffee
1:09:17 so
1:09:19 they started presenting some arguments
1:09:22 so the doctors
1:09:23 they were a bunch of uh they were two
1:09:25 Persian doctors they they present some
1:09:28 arguments based on medicine so they were
1:09:31 saying that oh coffee is a cold and dry
1:09:33 substance now these are like um
1:09:35 arguments um informed by um
1:09:39 this is an outdated medical
1:09:42 perspective and basically my cold and
1:09:44 dry substance is that they are
1:09:46 melancholic that they they are harmful
1:09:48 to the temperaments and they can cause
1:09:50 severe depression substances that are
1:09:52 cold and dry they were perceived to be
1:09:54 harmful to the body because they could
1:09:56 cause you many long-term problems
1:10:00 um especially for somebody's mental
1:10:02 disposition I'm an expert at gills
1:10:04 medicine but based on my reading of it
1:10:07 that's what they were saying
1:10:08 um that was their argument
1:10:11 um of course this type of reasoning on
1:10:14 its own it's not
1:10:16 satisfactory this type of geologic
1:10:19 commands the reason is because first of
1:10:20 all coffee is not a cold and dry
1:10:22 substance I'll just really talks about
1:10:23 that he's saying it's not cold dry he's
1:10:25 saying that actually it has it's
1:10:27 different it's a warm substance
1:10:28 um but that's a side point the more
1:10:30 important point is that they're trying
1:10:32 to say coffee is harmful because it's
1:10:34 cold and dry well the issue is that
1:10:37 there are many substances that are cold
1:10:39 and dry and we eat them
1:10:41 you know for example
1:10:42 um according to galen's medication this
1:10:45 medical
1:10:46 um typology and classification
1:10:49 you have a lot of vegetables and fruits
1:10:52 and other substances that are cold and
1:10:53 dry so for example um they would say
1:10:55 that I think lentils are cold and dry
1:10:58 they would say eggplant just cold and
1:10:59 dry these other substances are called
1:11:01 dry no scholar prohibited these
1:11:03 substances so why are you bringing this
1:11:05 up only on coffee
1:11:08 um so this type of argument on itself is
1:11:09 quite unsatisfactory and an under
1:11:11 further Point against it is that um cold
1:11:14 and dry substances can only cause
1:11:17 problems if they're taken in a large
1:11:20 amount or continuously
1:11:22 if you're going to say coffee is harmful
1:11:24 then it's only harmful if it's consumed
1:11:26 in very large amounts but we've now
1:11:28 you've not established all that drinking
1:11:30 coffee in moderation or in small amounts
1:11:33 is prohibited
1:11:36 so anything that's consumed in a very
1:11:38 large amount is going to be prohibited
1:11:40 yeah and then it's going to be harmful
1:11:42 so they haven't really given a strong
1:11:45 argument against coffee with this this
1:11:48 type of argument is not satisfactory
1:11:51 so then um that argument's problematic
1:11:54 the other argument that they give is
1:11:55 witness testimony
1:11:57 so this is a more interesting argument
1:11:59 so what happens higher big and these
1:12:01 doctors they brought a few people and
1:12:03 they dressed them up in the scholarly
1:12:05 clothes and they try to make them look
1:12:06 very good although they were all Unknown
1:12:09 People al-jaziri notes they weren't
1:12:10 people reliable testimony
1:12:14 and they all said that oh we drank
1:12:16 coffee and we used to we weren't good
1:12:18 people we drank coffee and other things
1:12:20 and we found that coffee was just like
1:12:22 those other intoxicants
1:12:24 so they're saying that oh we can strike
1:12:27 a case uh against coffee with this
1:12:31 now
1:12:33 what happens is
1:12:36 these jurists most of them sitting down
1:12:38 here and listening to this like we of
1:12:41 course don't have much documentation on
1:12:42 that's not even al-jaziri but it's hard
1:12:45 to believe any jurors would listen to
1:12:47 this seriously or take these arguments
1:12:49 by themselves seriously and I'll just
1:12:51 I'll just really note that he does give
1:12:53 us one important note he knows that one
1:12:56 of the main attending jurists was
1:12:58 nuradin Ali Ali and Nasser and he
1:13:02 actually
1:13:04 um
1:13:06 what he did was he very neatly
1:13:09 sidestepped one of the arguments that
1:13:11 were being given and what he said was
1:13:14 that um
1:13:16 lock
1:13:17 new Witnesses
1:13:20 you're saying coffee is like wine so do
1:13:22 you guys drink wine or were you drinking
1:13:24 wine
1:13:25 and um there's that yeah we did and
1:13:28 Music
1:13:30 they kind of left it open like that and
1:13:35 he saw what happened was that he turned
1:13:39 to the governor and he said
1:13:41 you know if you really want to listen to
1:13:42 these people anymore then I think you
1:13:44 should first impose the legal punishment
1:13:47 on them now that these people aren't
1:13:49 really reliable like they're now
1:13:51 admitted to us that they've done these
1:13:53 types of things and there's no real
1:13:56 evidence that um
1:13:58 they've repented per se and now you if
1:14:01 we're gonna if you want to listen to
1:14:03 them floods first of all
1:14:05 um
1:14:06 let's first of all um have them yeah
1:14:10 since they admitted that they had
1:14:12 consumed wine their testimony could no
1:14:14 longer be accepted
1:14:18 opposing lines of reasoning they were
1:14:21 very injurious to the provisionist cause
1:14:23 and some historians they do note that
1:14:25 because of his constant rebuttals a
1:14:28 large number of the attendees were
1:14:30 finding his counter arguments to be
1:14:31 convincing
1:14:33 so the governor and the prohibitionist
1:14:35 they were failing in their attempts
1:14:39 they weren't really able to get this um
1:14:42 their side anybody on board really
1:14:46 um now
1:14:48 when you read the memorandum the story
1:14:51 of this account and when you read um How
1:14:53 It Ends it ends very quickly and
1:14:55 arbitrarily so you have all these
1:14:57 arguments none of them make sense and
1:15:00 then here's how it closes you have the
1:15:02 two doctors
1:15:03 who are talking about cold and dry and
1:15:05 everything that the coffee is golden dry
1:15:07 and they're they're being rebutted what
1:15:09 happens is they suddenly just said well
1:15:11 okay even if it's pure and it's
1:15:13 permissible it drags you to a sin to the
1:15:17 coffee house and for that reason it the
1:15:19 doors to it should be closed the doctor
1:15:21 made that claim the two doctors are
1:15:23 saying yeah it's it's it's it's it's it
1:15:25 the ending of it
1:15:28 it's very it's very odd when you read it
1:15:31 um even if you keep reading it it sounds
1:15:33 even more odd it doesn't even make sense
1:15:36 when you read it
1:15:37 um that the doctors are closing the
1:15:39 discussion and then what happens is
1:15:40 basically the governor procures the
1:15:42 signatures blood yeah signatures
1:15:45 quote-unquote of all these Scholars
1:15:46 giving their you know blessing of this
1:15:49 prohibition
1:15:51 um
1:15:52 of course anybody who reads this and Al
1:15:54 jaziri Al jazeer himself says he says
1:15:55 this is this was these
1:15:57 fat was against coffee that were taken
1:16:00 from the American government these were
1:16:01 through duress
1:16:03 they feared the governors around the
1:16:05 governor was known for his violence he
1:16:07 was known for his tyranny he wasn't able
1:16:09 to generate a convincing argument that
1:16:12 coffee was intrinsically forbidden so
1:16:13 what happened was at the end he just had
1:16:16 to forcibly get their concurrence for
1:16:18 the drinks back and he then made the
1:16:22 memorandum with the embellished story
1:16:23 about the Kaaba and everything and um
1:16:26 and he then gave a very one-sided
1:16:29 discussion of what happened in the
1:16:30 assembly he ignored nuradin Ali Ben
1:16:33 Nasser his name completely he was his
1:16:36 name was completely taken out
1:16:39 his name was struck out none of his um
1:16:41 arguments against were
1:16:43 um recorded or registered
1:16:46 what happened was they
1:16:48 they sent this to the mom look Sultan at
1:16:50 the Cairo
1:16:52 and the jurists they all reluctantly
1:16:54 agreed they gave their written approval
1:16:55 of this predetermined decision
1:16:58 now
1:17:00 what happens then you know higher big
1:17:03 he's expecting he's saying look I got
1:17:04 all the scholarly backing
1:17:06 I um I've been able to convince a
1:17:09 generating this is how he's presenting
1:17:10 himself he's saying look I'm I am
1:17:12 morally moved by this I am I am
1:17:14 religiously conscious I care about
1:17:16 what's happening in the city I have a
1:17:18 responsibility as the to take to take
1:17:21 care of all these immoral activities
1:17:23 going on coffees has problematic
1:17:25 properties all these Scholars agree with
1:17:27 me like anybody who looks at they're
1:17:29 like okay maybe he's got it and he's
1:17:31 gonna win like he he forced everybody to
1:17:33 agree with him
1:17:35 um he was able to make this strong
1:17:37 document although it's all fault mostly
1:17:39 false at least the arguments apparently
1:17:41 look good enough so he's probably gonna
1:17:44 win he's probably gonna get the ban uh
1:17:47 you know agreed upon the man look
1:17:49 sultanate will give its approval of this
1:17:51 band but what happens
1:17:54 what happens is
1:17:58 though mum look sultan
1:18:01 replies back with a Royal Decree
1:18:05 and the Royal Decree is very fascinating
1:18:07 because
1:18:10 it actually
1:18:13 falsifies almost all of the claims that
1:18:16 were being made by higher Bank Harvard
1:18:18 was saying copies intoxicating coffee is
1:18:20 harmful he's writing all these uh
1:18:23 different arguments and he's expecting a
1:18:25 wholesale prohibition of coffee what
1:18:27 happens is the mom look Sultan's Royal
1:18:29 Decree
1:18:31 it only prohibits the consumption of
1:18:34 coffee in the coffee houses it does not
1:18:37 prohibit coffee in and of itself and the
1:18:40 Royal decrees actually recorded in Al
1:18:42 jazeera's work so what they're saying is
1:18:46 if you read the quote what they're
1:18:48 basically saying is that we're aware
1:18:50 we've now become aware that coffee is
1:18:52 being drunk and and consumed in a way
1:18:54 that wine is being consumed through the
1:18:56 Idora the passing around the cup the use
1:18:58 of the goblets the use of these are okay
1:19:00 we acknowledge that the things you
1:19:01 mentioned okay those are problematic we
1:19:04 also know that coffee is being used in
1:19:06 association with other prohibited
1:19:08 activities
1:19:10 um and they the the more important lines
1:19:13 are the last two sentences they're
1:19:15 saying it is evident that even the water
1:19:17 of zamzam will become prohibited if
1:19:20 consumed in this manner
1:19:22 then let the con public consumption of
1:19:25 coffee and its circulation in the
1:19:26 markets be prescribed these two last
1:19:29 sentences of Oriental jaziri they are
1:19:31 they fals to fly higher bigs claim what
1:19:35 happened what does this mean it means
1:19:37 that
1:19:40 it's not the what it's the how
1:19:43 it's not the substance problem it's how
1:19:46 it's being consumed that's the problem
1:19:47 so what they're saying is okay we're
1:19:48 like we're saying okay we we're against
1:19:51 how coffee is being consumed and then
1:19:53 all and we note that the major problem
1:19:56 is the coffee house and for that reason
1:19:58 we're just going to ban the public
1:19:59 consumption of coffee drink it inside
1:20:00 your houses it's okay don't drink it
1:20:02 outside because when you drink it
1:20:03 outside these other problematic things
1:20:04 happen so as long as you drink it inside
1:20:07 your house this world okay with that so
1:20:08 jasiri says this actually proves that
1:20:11 there were other scholars in Cairo
1:20:14 in the Royal Court or in other places
1:20:17 who likely nullified the claim of these
1:20:22 of higher big and the false fat ones
1:20:25 that he got and they they were able to
1:20:28 say that no we're going to strike a
1:20:30 balance on this issue we're going to
1:20:32 permit it in private ban it in public
1:20:34 so at the end what happens is that um
1:20:39 scholarly balance is restored again and
1:20:43 this if it didn't happen in Mecca it
1:20:45 happens through Cairo so the decree
1:20:48 restored balance in the matter by
1:20:50 issuing a compromise resolution coffee
1:20:52 is in and itself in and of itself
1:20:54 permissible but it's public consumption
1:20:56 in outside quarters as a matter of
1:20:59 caution should be avoided lest people
1:21:02 Gather in settings like coffee houses so
1:21:05 higher bigs uh very strong
1:21:09 campaign against coffee
1:21:12 failed a tremendously backfired because
1:21:15 he was now stripped of the authority to
1:21:17 harass and punish individuals who drank
1:21:19 coffee within the confines of their
1:21:21 dwellings now
1:21:23 the people of Mecca they became aware
1:21:26 what the Royal decreased at the marsum
1:21:28 when they became aware they became aware
1:21:30 of it and they said look
1:21:32 we're aware now that higher bigs
1:21:35 campaign failed and it they also
1:21:38 realized that the decree permits coffee
1:21:39 so they said look we're just going to
1:21:42 defy the restrictions all together we're
1:21:44 going to drink it in public as well
1:21:46 like what can you do
1:21:48 like higher big lost a lot of legitimacy
1:21:51 because
1:21:53 um it seems that he expanded a lot of
1:21:54 efforts on Banning coffee altogether and
1:21:58 um now all of his efforts are wasted so
1:22:00 a lot of people were like this is our
1:22:01 chance to get back at him so they
1:22:03 started drinking in public and higher
1:22:05 big could not really do much
1:22:07 he really was not able to stop them
1:22:09 because everybody was now flaunting
1:22:11 these regulations because these were
1:22:12 very LAX regulations
1:22:15 um it kind of seems that um
1:22:18 the Royal Decree when you read of it
1:22:20 read it it's kind of really saying to
1:22:22 hire big that we're not very moved by
1:22:24 your concerns altogether the only thing
1:22:26 that concerns us what's happening in the
1:22:27 public sphere but we really are not um
1:22:31 convinced by any of the arguments you've
1:22:32 made on the intrinsic properties of
1:22:35 coffee itself and yeah within some short
1:22:38 time higher bake is removed from power
1:22:39 as well so the whole thing for him and
1:22:42 such a stupendous failure a blanket
1:22:47 right
1:22:49 so
1:22:52 um in closing the
1:22:54 um
1:22:55 what we can
1:22:57 um gather from this presentation is that
1:23:00 the coffee controversy or the coffee
1:23:02 episode in Islamic history
1:23:05 is contrary to many claims actually a
1:23:09 strong uh indication of
1:23:12 the juristic power
1:23:14 the the juristic uh genius found in the
1:23:19 olama stratum the the olama stratum was
1:23:23 not a naive class that
1:23:26 um was just sitting in a they were
1:23:28 sitting on their arm chairs and just
1:23:30 looking at all coffee lexically means
1:23:32 wine it's prohibited
1:23:34 or coffee should just be permitted
1:23:36 because of all uh because of the
1:23:38 original ruling of permissibility they
1:23:40 were not like that they were actually
1:23:42 very active
1:23:44 um they brought in a number of empirical
1:23:47 and
1:23:49 um you might even say scientific
1:23:51 principles in place in order to strike a
1:23:55 very accurate ruling of coffee
1:23:58 um it's a very impressive case study
1:24:00 because it shows to us that
1:24:03 um jurists can put on many hats on they
1:24:06 can put on hats on as scientists they
1:24:09 can put on a hat as uh Scholars of
1:24:12 epistemology Scholars of logic they were
1:24:15 able to look at things through a number
1:24:17 of different lenses
1:24:18 they were looking at it
1:24:21 um through a bird's eye view they were
1:24:23 not looking at Coffee just as a um
1:24:26 intrinsic or its own uh properties per
1:24:29 se they were also looking at it at the
1:24:31 social sphere as well so they were
1:24:33 giving balanced rulings
1:24:35 is all really when we look at them as a
1:24:39 whole we make two major findings the
1:24:43 first major finding is that um there are
1:24:46 strong indicators which point to the
1:24:48 conclusion that the majority of jurors
1:24:50 permitted coffee and the second point is
1:24:52 that the meccan assembly contrary to
1:24:55 many academics does not prove that the
1:25:00 majority of Scholars were
1:25:01 prohibitionists so these in some give a
1:25:05 very strong alternative thesis which I
1:25:08 hope uh to some extent can challenge the
1:25:11 mainstream thesis and put it into
1:25:13 question
1:25:17 for this uh you know very interesting
1:25:20 and educational presentation
1:25:22 um uh it was long overdue for this issue
1:25:24 to have received a proper clarification
1:25:26 of this sort that is you know accessible
1:25:29 to The Wider public
1:25:31 um I know for sure that modernists have
1:25:34 long Twisted this issue in order to
1:25:36 undermine The credibility of Islamic
1:25:39 scholarship and present traditional
1:25:42 Islamic scholars as being collectively
1:25:44 backward and inept to the point that
1:25:47 they cannot adapt quickly enough to our
1:25:49 changing time and it's also clear from
1:25:51 reading our article
1:25:53 um that unfortunately even some popular
1:25:55 traditional Muslim speakers who
1:25:58 ought to know better have fallen victim
1:26:00 to this distorted narrative and
1:26:02 um in turn it inadvertently undermine
1:26:05 The credibility of traditional Islamic
1:26:07 scholarship by further spreading this
1:26:09 false narrative so you know thank you
1:26:11 once again for setting the record
1:26:13 straight on this issue and and thank you
1:26:16 for for the excellent exposition of the
1:26:21 um various uh stances held by the
1:26:23 different jurors of that time um it's
1:26:26 it's very interesting to and insightful
1:26:28 to to understand and see the
1:26:31 wide-ranging perspectives the scholars
1:26:33 held
1:26:34 um it is
1:26:36 um especially important to know as you
1:26:38 clearly demonstrated how how dependent
1:26:41 affect what is
1:26:43 upon the manner and and contents of the
1:26:46 question posed to the Mufti as uh this
1:26:50 undoubtedly
1:26:51 um shapes the answer that OB provided to
1:26:54 the questioner
1:26:55 um uh I I did want to ask
1:26:58 um you you mentioned that you know the
1:27:01 conventional wisdom or or the mainstream
1:27:03 view
1:27:05 um uh uh and perhaps Western Academia uh
1:27:09 for instance is uh was that the
1:27:12 prohibitionist view was the majoritarian
1:27:15 View and and clearly you demonstrated
1:27:17 that this is an insufficient
1:27:20 um assessment of this historical event
1:27:22 what what possible reasons
1:27:26 could explain that you know
1:27:28 insufficiency like what we're we're all
1:27:31 these Scholars and academics just
1:27:33 failing to
1:27:35 do
1:27:36 um to engage in a proper inductive
1:27:39 uh you know uh uh you know engagement
1:27:43 and and and reading of all the of all
1:27:46 the sources at that time I mean do you
1:27:47 have any theories I could explain why
1:27:50 they have you know why so many have
1:27:52 reached that false conclusion
1:27:55 um so um yeah that's a very interesting
1:27:59 question
1:28:00 um what I can only offer are some uh
1:28:02 possible uh hypotheses
1:28:05 um in terms of
1:28:07 um you know non-muslim academics or uh
1:28:10 non-muslim Scholars um I think um it
1:28:13 might be a type of um
1:28:15 a bias in the sense that um when they
1:28:18 look at this time of History they are
1:28:20 already perceiving the Muslim world to
1:28:22 be in Decline they believe that there is
1:28:24 a type of intellectual decline
1:28:26 um and of course these types of accounts
1:28:30 and episodes when you look at these uh
1:28:32 apparent fat was a Prohibition they can
1:28:35 very conveniently be employed to support
1:28:37 the uh closing of the gates of which
1:28:40 they had thesis that they're going to be
1:28:42 like look
1:28:43 um the scholars at the scholarly stratum
1:28:46 at this point was so backwards that at
1:28:50 this point they are um
1:28:53 they are simply
1:28:55 annexing coffee with wine
1:28:58 just based on a lexical uh connection
1:29:02 they're that um they are that naive I
1:29:05 mean that is that is the type of the
1:29:07 impression I get from some
1:29:08 uh writings on this topic that
1:29:11 um Scholars at this point of time there
1:29:14 is a lack of uh creativity and
1:29:17 independent thinking independent
1:29:19 touristic thinking which demonstrates
1:29:21 that Scholars were just very lazily
1:29:25 um giving a convenient answer on coffee
1:29:29 and they're just saying oh coffee comes
1:29:30 from means wine we're just going to
1:29:33 prohibit it and they can use that and
1:29:35 employ that to support their disease
1:29:38 whether it's um
1:29:40 um the static view of the Muslim world
1:29:43 the Muslim world is static and cannot
1:29:45 change it's not adaptable to any type of
1:29:47 uh uh Improvement or change or it can be
1:29:50 used for the closing of the gates of
1:29:52 which that so it's very convenient for
1:29:55 them to use that I'm not saying they're
1:29:57 maliciously or intentionally doing it
1:29:59 but I'm saying if you already believe
1:30:00 this why they're broad-ranging thesis
1:30:02 that at this time the Muslim world is be
1:30:05 set with these problems then um this
1:30:08 type of account can very conveniently
1:30:10 fit in
1:30:12 um if you don't look like one would be
1:30:13 predisposed to yeah being receptive to
1:30:16 that theory yes
1:30:18 um in terms of Muslim Scholars
1:30:20 um I would say that um
1:30:23 the main reason why they would cite this
1:30:25 episode is they want to bring it up as a
1:30:30 in a very Sensational sensationalist way
1:30:33 they want to bring it up as an example
1:30:35 of um
1:30:38 the retrograde Tendencies of many
1:30:40 traditional Scholars traditional
1:30:42 scholarship and they want to use that to
1:30:45 promote their own reformist projects so
1:30:49 they can use this as a type of project
1:30:53 to justify their own itch to have so
1:30:55 they're going to be saying that um we
1:30:57 are in need of new a new type of itch to
1:31:00 hat and the reason is that these recent
1:31:03 episodes relatively recent episodes
1:31:06 demonstrate that Muslim scholarship had
1:31:09 lost its empirical footing it's it's
1:31:12 theoretical footing it is not able to
1:31:15 adapt and react properly to nawazul so
1:31:19 we need a new type of Reform and it's a
1:31:23 very convenient way to unfortunately
1:31:25 it's a way of putting Scholars down to
1:31:27 raise yourself up
1:31:29 um that is how I see that when I see
1:31:31 some
1:31:32 um speakers doing using it it's for that
1:31:34 type of a tendency
1:31:36 um and I think
1:31:38 um I would I would uh say however that
1:31:42 um
1:31:42 from the two groups I would say that the
1:31:45 um
1:31:46 I find non-muslim academics to be more
1:31:50 honest and academic in their approach
1:31:52 there are more accurate than reports
1:31:54 like for example Ralph haptics might be
1:31:56 mispronouncing his last name ralphatics
1:31:59 um he has a word called coffee and
1:32:00 coffee houses
1:32:02 um it is one of the main works that was
1:32:04 written like 40 something years ago
1:32:06 um on coffee and um it although it is
1:32:10 lacking in many places I find that he is
1:32:12 at least very accurate in trying to um
1:32:15 present some Divergent uh perspectives
1:32:19 he's trying to bring in some of the uh
1:32:22 um different scholarly positions in
1:32:25 coffee although he's not able to do it
1:32:26 in a very neat fashion he is able to at
1:32:28 least show the different perspectives
1:32:29 it's it's it's it's it's kind of
1:32:31 somewhat baffling to find
1:32:34 um many of the Muslim uh presenters not
1:32:37 uh
1:32:38 showing that degree of
1:32:42 sophistication and presenting the detail
1:32:45 presenting the diversity of legal views
1:32:48 in the way that Ralph Haddix did
1:32:50 um so I find that a bit odd uh to be
1:32:53 honest
1:32:55 to wrap up this discussion um
1:32:59 what general key learnings would you
1:33:03 personally like to see Muslims derive
1:33:07 out of this entire discussion out of
1:33:09 this entire issue
1:33:12 um I think the main uh
1:33:15 the main uh one of the main issues that
1:33:18 I've um derived from this point is that
1:33:21 um
1:33:22 there are you should always be wary of
1:33:25 secondary sources and always rely on
1:33:28 primary sources if there if you rely on
1:33:32 secondary accounts they are very prone
1:33:35 to error
1:33:37 um they might have been subject to
1:33:38 malicious or unintentional changes which
1:33:42 uh
1:33:44 alter the account and so for example
1:33:48 some of these fatwas are probationists
1:33:51 if you find them in secondary sources
1:33:53 they are sometimes written in a
1:33:54 different way or they're um the question
1:33:56 is not provided with them so of course
1:33:58 when you read the prohibiting answer you
1:34:01 kind of think that it's absolute
1:34:04 so um I would say the most important
1:34:06 thing is always read primary sources do
1:34:09 not
1:34:09 um look just at um secondary sources I
1:34:14 think another thing uh important to note
1:34:16 is that um
1:34:20 we should not be ashamed of our
1:34:23 tradition and we should not be ashamed
1:34:25 of what our Scholars or we should not
1:34:27 try to um sensationalize or make up
1:34:30 accounts against them to bring ourselves
1:34:32 up and it's unfortunate that some uh
1:34:34 sometimes that happens
1:34:36 um if somebody wants to speak about a
1:34:40 generation or two generations of
1:34:42 Scholars a Muslim scholarship
1:34:46 I honestly would expect that person to
1:34:50 at least uh read several primary sources
1:34:53 carefully if they're not doing that and
1:34:57 they're just bringing up secondary
1:34:59 accounts to give a negative impression
1:35:03 of Scholars
1:35:04 to
1:35:06 um bring put their position down then um
1:35:09 I find that very disturbing to be honest
1:35:13 um it's very disturbing to see that
1:35:15 happen because um
1:35:17 that person does not show their due
1:35:19 diligence
1:35:20 um and unfortunately this is it you know
1:35:22 you see countless of examples of this
1:35:23 being brought up um not only this other
1:35:26 cases as well other issues as well um
1:35:29 but um you know they deserve our respect
1:35:32 and they deserve at least um to be cited
1:35:34 correctly and they deserve to be read
1:35:36 correctly and they deserve to um
1:35:38 they deserve at least a fair hearing I
1:35:43 would say
1:35:44 um so at least we can do for whom the
1:35:48 process and I'm described as the
1:35:50 inheritors of the prophets and so
1:35:53 um yeah absolutely absolutely
1:35:57 well uh I think I think that's a great
1:35:59 place to end uh I really want to thank
1:36:00 you for your time again uh this was a
1:36:03 really a fascinating uh presentation
1:36:06 and uh you know we'd love to have you on
1:36:08 blogging theology again and um I think
1:36:12 uh the listeners and uh and you know
1:36:17 with that we conclude