Imam Tom discusses The Impossible State by Wael Hallaq (part 1) (2022-11-19) #

0:00:03 hello everyone and welcome to blogging
0:00:05 theology today I am delighted to talk
0:00:07 again to Imam Tom Welcome Back Sir no
0:00:11 thank you so much it's great to be back
0:00:12 as you all know Tom has Connie agreed to
0:00:15 discuss the books that have made a
0:00:16 significant difference to him
0:00:18 intellectually and today Tom will be
0:00:21 discussing an extremely important book
0:00:24 entitled The Impossible State Islam
0:00:27 politics and modernity's moral
0:00:30 predicament by wa al-halac and this is
0:00:33 the rather amazing cover actually there
0:00:37 um and it's called it's got a sticker on
0:00:39 there saying um we both got the same
0:00:41 time
0:00:42 um you've probably got a signed copy I
0:00:43 have uh the Columbia University
0:00:46 distinguished book awards this is one
0:00:49 Awards and what's interesting is
0:00:51 um uh hallak is a professor in the
0:00:54 humanities at Columbia University where
0:00:57 he's been teaching ethics law and
0:00:58 political thoughts since
0:01:00 2009 and is considered an leading
0:01:04 scholar in the field of Islamic legal
0:01:06 studies and has been described as one of
0:01:09 the world's leading authorities on
0:01:11 Islamic law and halak is a Christian
0:01:15 interestingly uh although I think he
0:01:17 actually features in a list of the top
0:01:20 500 Muslim Scholars and that annual list
0:01:24 of uh very influential Muslims that
0:01:26 comes out and he's actually one one of
0:01:28 them although he's actually a Christian
0:01:29 and he's born to a Palestinian Christian
0:01:33 family in some are called Nazareth which
0:01:36 I think you may have heard of
0:01:38 um so uh Imam Tom would you like to
0:01:40 introduce us to this seminal work
0:01:48 is a very very important thinker
0:01:51 um and an important contemporary thinker
0:01:54 um yes he was born into a Christian
0:01:56 family but for a lot of people
0:01:58 um they might get spooked by that but I
0:02:01 want to just assure people that if you
0:02:03 read his work
0:02:05 um you'll be astonished at the way in
0:02:07 which he writes about the Sharia and
0:02:10 astonished in a positive way I mean some
0:02:12 of some of the ways in which he writes
0:02:13 about the Sharia as a Muslim are
0:02:16 extremely inspiring and and you know
0:02:19 humbling and beautiful so don't be
0:02:21 turned off and you know we also have to
0:02:23 realize I think in Western Academia that
0:02:25 there's a price to pay
0:02:28 for showing all of your cards right and
0:02:31 that is to say that it for all we know
0:02:34 and I've had you know certain
0:02:36 individuals say that you know he he
0:02:38 might be leaning towards Islam in his
0:02:40 personal life
0:02:41 um we can't tell exactly but um I think
0:02:44 that people should realize that for
0:02:46 somebody of his stature in his field
0:02:48 that he would very easily be discredited
0:02:50 if say he were to come out and say that
0:02:53 okay I've embraced the face of Islam it
0:02:55 would it would potentially be very
0:02:56 damaging for his academic reputation
0:02:59 um so
0:03:00 um I have High Hopes I think of anybody
0:03:02 who who reads his work seriously and
0:03:05 carefully carefully such as you and I do
0:03:08 um I think we have high hopes that that
0:03:10 this individual inshallah will uh either
0:03:12 already has been guided to the truth or
0:03:14 or will be guided in the future and yeah
0:03:17 there's a wonderful clip of his being
0:03:19 interviewed on YouTube as easy to find
0:03:21 where he talks about his preference now
0:03:23 he's an American citizen living in you
0:03:26 know the world's superpower he would
0:03:28 much rather he says prefer to live in
0:03:31 under an Islamic system Sharia
0:03:32 specifically he said sure than he would
0:03:35 in the west and the reason he the
0:03:37 reasons he gives extremely interesting
0:03:38 and as you rightly say if you're a
0:03:40 Muslim uh what he says is actually very
0:03:42 inspiring
0:03:43 um and it's difficult to tell if he is a
0:03:46 Christian but he says he is or he has
0:03:48 said he is um so there we go
0:03:50 and that's actually a perfect segue to
0:03:52 the point of the book and um and we'll
0:03:54 talk about kind of in a second uh the
0:03:57 the situation or the context of this
0:03:59 book within the author's sort of body of
0:04:01 work but you know when you say that he
0:04:03 remarked that he would rather live in a
0:04:06 Sharia system or under Syria system you
0:04:08 know the first uh reaction for any
0:04:10 listener would be like well where you
0:04:12 know uh which sort of
0:04:14 um situation or context or government or
0:04:17 nation is the best suitable place that
0:04:21 he would consider something that is you
0:04:23 know quote unquote ruling by the Sharia
0:04:25 is kind of the the common phrase that
0:04:26 that Muslims use and his response would
0:04:30 be I'm guessing and the point of this
0:04:32 book is that there is no such place on
0:04:34 the face of this earth right now
0:04:37 um and that's the concept of the the
0:04:39 title which is called The Impossible
0:04:41 State okay the thesis of the entire book
0:04:43 is that there is no such thing as an
0:04:47 Islamic State and that is to say and
0:04:49 we're going to go into it and unpack
0:04:51 exactly what what he means by that but
0:04:53 he's basically saying that the Sharia
0:04:55 the true system of the Sharia is
0:04:58 completely incompatible with the
0:05:00 technology of governance that is known
0:05:02 as the state and so there they are
0:05:05 mutually exclusive forces they're
0:05:07 completely fundamentally contradicting
0:05:08 forces if there is a state then there is
0:05:11 no Sharia and if there is a Sharia then
0:05:13 there is no State
0:05:15 um now that's a bold claim and we're
0:05:16 going to underpack we're going to unpack
0:05:18 excuse me exactly what he means by that
0:05:21 um but in a second like or for a second
0:05:24 let's just talk about the role of this
0:05:26 particular work within the stream of his
0:05:27 works most of his earlier works are much
0:05:30 more empirical and they are fascinating
0:05:32 from somebody who studied
0:05:35 within in Arabic and from traditional
0:05:38 classical sources
0:05:40 um
0:05:41 some of the best renderings of us that
0:05:44 I've found and the Nuance in legal
0:05:47 reasoning can be found in Hallock's work
0:05:49 such as yes and introduction into
0:05:51 Islamic law his other his other work
0:05:53 Transformations it's got a longer title
0:05:55 than that but it's got transformations
0:05:56 in the title he does a fantastic job of
0:06:00 uh better than anybody else in the
0:06:01 English language that I have seen
0:06:03 um sort of elucidating the nuance and of
0:06:05 legal reasoning and how it is you know
0:06:07 if you if you read Oriental a
0:06:09 scholarship or most uh religious studies
0:06:12 scholarship you're going to get the
0:06:13 tired old tropes of literalists versus
0:06:16 you know modernists and and these sorts
0:06:18 of things
0:06:19 um people who think that that the
0:06:20 hambilizer Imam Ahmed are just
0:06:22 literalists or fundamentalists or things
0:06:23 like that all these sorts of very very
0:06:25 forced oppositions that come from
0:06:27 Christian experience and Christian
0:06:29 theology
0:06:30 um and so he doesn't commit those
0:06:32 mistakes he is very very he's got a very
0:06:35 keen sense of detail and does a great
0:06:38 job representing accurately and
0:06:39 Faithfully representing
0:06:41 um the internal anatomy and logic of of
0:06:44 Islamic law and Islamic reasoning
0:06:47 um so as his Works went on you know they
0:06:50 got a bit more theoretical and so for
0:06:52 example
0:06:52 um you'll find in an introduction to
0:06:55 Islamic law which you just pointed out a
0:06:56 second ago he will use the word Islamic
0:06:59 State okay and now in this book he's
0:07:01 completely refuting that idea and taking
0:07:03 back that kind of terminology
0:07:05 um so this work and the work that he
0:07:07 published after this uh restating
0:07:09 orientalism our goal in this series of
0:07:12 videos is to cover these two books
0:07:14 because I find these two books the most
0:07:16 important and essential for Muslims to
0:07:18 understand the points that the author is
0:07:20 making
0:07:21 um
0:07:22 and they're kind of complementary have
0:07:24 so you have the impossible state which
0:07:26 is more he says it in the intro of
0:07:28 restating orientalism that the that the
0:07:31 the goal of the impossible state is more
0:07:33 the audience is a little bit more geared
0:07:34 towards Muslims whereas the audience of
0:07:37 re restating orientalism is just a
0:07:38 little bit more geared towards
0:07:39 non-muslims but they deal with a lot of
0:07:41 similar issues from slightly different
0:07:43 perspectives
0:07:45 um so again back to the thesis of the
0:07:47 book if we're getting into we're just
0:07:49 going to go through kind of the main
0:07:50 points of the intro his main thesis is
0:07:52 that there is no such thing as an atomic
0:07:55 state
0:07:56 um that the Sharia if we're going to
0:07:58 understand what the Sharia is the Sharia
0:08:00 is a Unity of moral and legal forces
0:08:04 okay whereas the state is predicated
0:08:08 upon the separation of those two okay
0:08:10 the state is a legal Force primarily and
0:08:13 it has largely abandoned uh the moral
0:08:16 Force whereas the Sharia is a Unity of
0:08:18 the two put differently we could say
0:08:21 that Sharia indigenously in our
0:08:23 tradition is a um is a sovereign force
0:08:27 that regulates society and it regulates
0:08:31 government okay which is a crucial
0:08:33 distinction from what we have as the
0:08:35 state now the nation state whereas the
0:08:38 state is what regulates society and it
0:08:41 also even in the Muslim majority
0:08:43 countries or countries that claim to
0:08:45 rule by the Sharia or have
0:08:47 um let's say uh certain laws that are
0:08:50 based or sourced in the Sharia and we'll
0:08:52 talk about what it means to have it
0:08:53 sourced in the Sharia in a second that
0:08:55 the state is what is governing those
0:08:57 things okay the state is what is
0:08:59 governing the Sharia and not the other
0:09:01 way around which his argument is that
0:09:03 that is a complete uh contradiction if
0:09:06 you do that then you've handcuffed uh
0:09:08 the Sharia you've you know tied its arms
0:09:10 behind its back and it is not the Sharia
0:09:12 any longer
0:09:14 um it's important to note and and you
0:09:16 know the role of colonialism European
0:09:18 colonialism in all of this so
0:09:19 historically historically you know the
0:09:22 author says that the European Colonial
0:09:24 process he uses the term eviscerated the
0:09:27 shittier okay
0:09:29 sorry the word eviscerate uh means if
0:09:32 I'm not mistaken to empty to disembowel
0:09:35 something you know if you were to
0:09:36 eviscerate a goat uh of its innards uh
0:09:39 you know
0:09:40 um or or a human being it means empty
0:09:42 disembowel it's not it's a quite a
0:09:45 violent metaphor but you're basically
0:09:46 you're gutting it uh and and you may
0:09:49 have the outward form you know the word
0:09:51 linga but the essence of it the innards
0:09:54 have been removed disemboweled so
0:09:57 eviscerate is uh what that means uh I
0:10:00 looked up the word earlier and knowing
0:10:02 uh that while that uses it quite a lot
0:10:04 in his book yes and it's a very specific
0:10:07 term that he's using because it's not
0:10:10 that Sharia has been completely been
0:10:12 obliterated or absent no so what we have
0:10:15 is just the shell of sharia the outward
0:10:18 form and this is represented by using
0:10:20 Sharia as a source of law rather than a
0:10:22 paradigm of law or a paradigm for
0:10:24 society which will explain what all that
0:10:26 means in a bit inshallah but this is the
0:10:29 the idea that the process of European
0:10:31 colonization eviscerated emptied gutted
0:10:33 the Sharia and it smashed its autonomy
0:10:37 okay we'll talk about that as well and
0:10:39 it smashed its sovereignty right
0:10:41 sovereignty meaning the ultimate
0:10:42 Authority at the end of the day what has
0:10:45 ultimate uh ultimate Authority we can't
0:10:47 point to any place on the face of the
0:10:49 Earth right now and say that the Sharia
0:10:51 has the ultimate Authority which is a
0:10:53 crucial point in his argument and it
0:10:55 just suppose just for westerners like
0:10:57 myself you you may may not know when we
0:11:00 point at Muslim countries or Muslim
0:11:01 majority countries and say you know
0:11:03 these are Muslim countries they're run
0:11:04 by Sharia you know that kind of like
0:11:06 well you know since the time in Napoleon
0:11:08 or British colonialism the French and
0:11:09 the British and other countries you know
0:11:11 as as you say Islamic law has been been
0:11:14 largely replaced by European law
0:11:16 Napoleonic law British law like in India
0:11:19 and so on there may be elements to
0:11:21 Sharia left like uh but maybe
0:11:23 inheritance law divorce law things like
0:11:25 that but the the Paradigm the place of
0:11:28 sharia in those societies has been
0:11:31 completely changed eviscerated as you
0:11:34 say so it's not good enough to point to
0:11:36 a particular Muslim country and say aha
0:11:38 there's Sharia law we've got to take as
0:11:41 you say take into account the realities
0:11:42 historical realities of colonialism and
0:11:45 what the European powers did to those
0:11:47 countries which which are still present
0:11:49 within those countries today that they
0:11:51 didn't disappear after formal political
0:11:54 Independence the political and legal
0:11:57 systems continue to endure I think since
0:12:00 then
0:12:01 yes and so no that's that's the crucial
0:12:04 distinction and so the colonial era it
0:12:07 basically turned or redefined the Sharia
0:12:10 um from a paradigm which is what it was
0:12:12 before and all encompass accessing
0:12:14 Paradigm with authority and autonomy and
0:12:17 sovereignty and it turned it into a
0:12:20 source of law which is something of law
0:12:23 I like that right along with the
0:12:25 periodic law and British law and
0:12:26 whatever law right but even if even if
0:12:29 for the sake of argument even if we had
0:12:31 a nation-state that every single law it
0:12:33 had was sourced in the Sharia it's very
0:12:37 very different to say that a particular
0:12:39 law or a body of laws is sourced in the
0:12:41 Sharia versus is Sharia the entire
0:12:44 Paradigm and definition of law in and of
0:12:47 itself that's a very very different
0:12:48 thing and we'll get to kind of I mean if
0:12:51 if you really want to click a quick
0:12:52 litmus test and sometimes people pop in
0:12:54 the comments they say well what about
0:12:55 this government what about that
0:12:56 government and the litmus test is
0:12:58 actually very easy if the Sharia can
0:13:00 disband the government then the Sharia
0:13:02 has ultimate Authority and if the
0:13:04 government can disband Sharia then the
0:13:07 state has complete Authority or ultimate
0:13:09 Authority and there's not a place on the
0:13:10 face of the Earth right now where the
0:13:12 Sharia has that the power to or or the
0:13:15 representatives because of Syria is not
0:13:16 an individual right the representatives
0:13:19 of the Sharia can disband the government
0:13:22 but also places where the options Arabic
0:13:26 country which I won't know I don't want
0:13:27 to get into pointing at particular
0:13:28 countries by name but there's one that
0:13:31 many Muslims point to as the best we're
0:13:33 going to get there the
0:13:39 ulama there can't actually overthrow the
0:13:41 government or they can't yes because
0:13:42 it's a partnership between yes
0:13:44 elliptical and the ulama which goes back
0:13:46 to the 18th century
0:13:48 um so the i in a sense it makes your
0:13:50 point I agree with you yeah no we'll get
0:13:52 we will have to unfortunately and we
0:13:54 like to talk about things uh in in
0:13:56 generalities because they they you know
0:13:58 don't touch off people's sort of
0:14:00 emotional reactions as much however with
0:14:03 this sort of topic we are going to have
0:14:04 to get into specificities specificity is
0:14:07 up to you okay I'll take the burden you
0:14:09 know you don't have to comment that's
0:14:11 right yeah um so yes so the redefinition
0:14:14 of the Sharia as not the Paradigm but
0:14:18 rather a source of law okay even if all
0:14:20 the laws are sourced in the Sharia it's
0:14:21 no longer the Paradigm it's no longer
0:14:23 the ultimate Authority it can be
0:14:25 disbanded at any moment in time by the
0:14:27 state okay that's a huge difference and
0:14:30 second the Sharia is something that is
0:14:31 merely a legitimizing factor right for
0:14:34 the state okay so so that's the big
0:14:36 thing if you're trying to track it
0:14:37 Sharia going from a paradigm to going to
0:14:40 a source and a source of legitimacy
0:14:43 there are two very very different things
0:14:45 in the first chapter premises we'll talk
0:14:47 about that in more detail
0:14:49 um it's interesting to note and this is
0:14:51 part of what makes Islam sort of the
0:14:53 last Bastion of hope I think for the
0:14:56 world entirely and and even a source of
0:14:58 possible Redemption for the Western
0:14:59 world
0:15:00 that the ummah is very very different
0:15:02 and differently temperamented than the
0:15:06 uh the Muslim governments or the
0:15:07 governments in the in the Muslim world
0:15:08 so there was really you know if we look
0:15:11 across the Muslim world at the average
0:15:13 you know Masjid going Muslim people want
0:15:16 Sharia right even as you said the author
0:15:18 himself uh perhaps a Christian a
0:15:20 Palestinian Christian uh once Sharia
0:15:23 right he prefers it or would prefer it
0:15:25 even if he's got even if he were to
0:15:27 assert that it doesn't exist at any
0:15:29 single place and time right now
0:15:31 um in its truly organic and Indigenous
0:15:34 form
0:15:35 um he would prefer it over the sorts of
0:15:37 types of governance that we have now
0:15:39 um and so this is something that perhaps
0:15:42 the majority of Muslims feel across the
0:15:44 world which is
0:15:45 um you know obviously there there was a
0:15:48 specific sort of thing that happened uh
0:15:50 in 2015 when uh the quote-unquote
0:15:53 Islamic State uh daesh you know arose
0:15:56 and obviously Dash is it was horrible
0:15:58 and had all sorts of problems in excess
0:16:00 is and was completely unislamic for for
0:16:03 ways in which we'll actually talk about
0:16:04 and it's revealing that they were called
0:16:06 an Islamic State and here halak is
0:16:08 saying that's an impossibility right to
0:16:10 be an Islamic State it turned it in the
0:16:12 state basically turned it into a monster
0:16:15 um but if you notice you know we have to
0:16:17 account for and explain the phenomenon
0:16:19 why there were so many Muslims who
0:16:20 wanted to go there you know or every
0:16:23 single Muslim in the in the world that
0:16:25 tried to go or thought it would be um
0:16:27 you know a positive thing to go and try
0:16:29 to live under that that sort of Rogue
0:16:31 regime
0:16:32 um were they all just bloodthirsty
0:16:34 animals I can't believe that I think
0:16:36 that people many people had a decent
0:16:39 intention and were misled and duped
0:16:42 um by sort of what they sort of thought
0:16:45 that it would be and then there's lots
0:16:46 of stories and expose about people going
0:16:48 there and then finding that it was the
0:16:50 opposite of what they thought it was
0:16:52 um but the main point that's that's
0:16:54 pertinent to our discussion is that
0:16:55 people have this desire Muslims still
0:16:58 have this desire to to live according to
0:17:00 the Sharia and B according to live in a
0:17:03 society that is organized and operated
0:17:05 under the guidance of the Sharia
0:17:08 at a footnote there uh um uh I did a
0:17:12 video uh recently a Muslim skeptic made
0:17:14 this uh or publicized this online uh a
0:17:17 report a survey that came out just a few
0:17:19 months ago of uh uh you know millions of
0:17:22 Arab youth that's 18 24 year olds in
0:17:25 Levant North Africa you know the Middle
0:17:27 East uh and the vast majority of Youth
0:17:31 uh so there's not older people who might
0:17:33 be traditionally in class uh the
0:17:35 majority of them uh want uh Sharia uh
0:17:38 and very very clear uh result there
0:17:40 which is uh perhaps good news globally
0:17:43 for the Uma but uh is bound to perhaps
0:17:46 raise some concerns in Western policy
0:17:48 foreign policy circles in Washington and
0:17:50 so on because the the attempt to
0:17:52 secularize and liberalize and modernize
0:17:55 heavy inverted commas here uh the Arab
0:17:58 youth um in the Middle East doesn't
0:18:00 appear to her work very well because
0:18:03 they are stubbornly sticking with their
0:18:05 religion
0:18:06 um there you go you know it's amazing
0:18:08 that you and I didn't confer before this
0:18:09 interview because that was literally the
0:18:11 next point that I had written down no no
0:18:13 it's balance you you saved me from
0:18:16 having to bring it up
0:18:18 no no that's actually wonderful uh so
0:18:21 great minds think alike exactly so we
0:18:23 still alhamdulillah we still have this
0:18:24 desire the ummah wants Sharia however
0:18:27 the desire is deferred or the desire is
0:18:30 unmet we our desire is misled into
0:18:33 various failing attempts to live
0:18:37 according to the Shell of sharia or
0:18:39 things that are called Sharia or things
0:18:41 that are sourced in Sharia and the
0:18:43 frustration keeps on building because
0:18:44 every single one of these projects fails
0:18:47 whether it's something as crazy as an
0:18:49 extreme as Isis or whether it's other
0:18:52 sorts of experiments with Islamic
0:18:54 constitutionalism uh such as uh Pakistan
0:18:57 and Egypt right can anybody look to
0:18:59 Pakistan stand in Egypt and say that at
0:19:02 one point and we talked about Egypt
0:19:03 specifically when we went over the
0:19:05 formations of the secular by Paul asset
0:19:09 um was justifying its sort of
0:19:11 constitutionalism on Islamic grounds
0:19:13 saying that it is sourced in the Sharia
0:19:15 and we're deriving this constitution
0:19:17 from Sharia sources from Islamic law and
0:19:20 look at what a spectacular failure it is
0:19:22 who can look at Egypt right now and say
0:19:24 that Egypt is a representative of of the
0:19:27 Sharia absolutely
0:19:29 um you know impossible to believe in and
0:19:31 Pakistan as well right Pakistan as well
0:19:33 you know to to various degrees and we
0:19:35 can talk about degrees but if anybody
0:19:37 would look and say that this is a true
0:19:39 representation of sharia
0:19:40 we would be we would be really
0:19:43 stretching it like to sort of describe
0:19:45 those States as being representative of
0:19:47 the Sharia so that's one way and and
0:19:50 those two examples Egypt and Pakistan
0:19:52 are sort of ways in which maybe more
0:19:54 liberal forces have one out in a certain
0:19:56 uh we could debate that you know either
0:20:00 either liberal cultural forces or
0:20:02 liberal governance in addition to sort
0:20:04 of authoritarian figureheads and then
0:20:07 there's examples like Iran and Saudi
0:20:09 Arabia which have sort of you know gone
0:20:11 the sort of way of
0:20:13 um a similarly authoritarian way
0:20:15 um and that's where we we do have to
0:20:17 name names here because we're talking
0:20:18 about
0:20:19 um
0:20:20 governments that justify right there's
0:20:23 legitimization again they justify sort
0:20:25 of their either their existence entirely
0:20:27 or their particular policies or you know
0:20:30 even the laws that they have as being
0:20:33 supposedly sourced in the Sharia you've
0:20:36 lived in Saudi Arabia you worked there
0:20:37 you studied there obviously you've got
0:20:39 your quality academic uh qualifications
0:20:41 and well done for that but it does claim
0:20:45 very much to be based its Constitution
0:20:47 is the Quran I mean uh it doesn't claim
0:20:50 to be a secular country at all but we
0:20:52 have this unique power sharing
0:20:53 Arrangement don't they between
0:20:55 uh you know historically the uh uh the
0:20:58 Saudi uh lineage and and the uh
0:21:02 the is the scholar of course who had the
0:21:04 this interesting Arrangement which goes
0:21:06 back to the beginning of the the first
0:21:08 Saudi State and and you're saying by
0:21:10 your definition you know the the ulama
0:21:12 there couldn't overthrow the government
0:21:13 or get rid of it because they are they
0:21:15 are locked together in this historic
0:21:18 pact which which is the very definition
0:21:20 of what it is to be Saudi Arabian isn't
0:21:22 it right I mean to call it a pact is
0:21:24 even I think quite generous I would say
0:21:25 that you know the state has the
0:21:28 apparatus of the security apparatus and
0:21:30 the and the weaponry and things like
0:21:32 that and the state derives it's a its
0:21:34 legitimacy from sort of claiming that it
0:21:38 you know gives sort of a certain amount
0:21:40 of lip service to Islamic scholarship
0:21:41 and this and that and the third but
0:21:43 what's the reality you know the the
0:21:45 reality is that the state completely
0:21:47 gets to set the parameters for what
0:21:49 religiosity looks like and what it can
0:21:51 look like and then you're very dependent
0:21:54 upon the virtue you and the sort of
0:21:56 piety of an either an individual king or
0:21:58 ruler or sort of what are the
0:22:01 expediencies of the state right what is
0:22:04 it as long as is it is expedient for the
0:22:07 state to have an Islamic flavor then
0:22:09 they will sort of resort to that but as
0:22:11 soon as it stops being expedient or
0:22:13 useful then they will discard that and
0:22:15 actually we live in that time period now
0:22:16 you know I arrived there in 2015. I left
0:22:19 in in um in 2020 and the changes that
0:22:23 had occurred in those five years you
0:22:24 know were dramatic
0:22:26 um and a lot of those those changes a
0:22:29 lot it's well known it's been very very
0:22:31 criticized
0:22:32 um but yeah we're looking we saw
0:22:35 Halloween beings celebrated apparently
0:22:37 with official approval we've seen rock
0:22:39 concerts uh we've seen all sorts of
0:22:41 Highly westernized hedonistic activities
0:22:44 apparently approved of I'm sure they
0:22:46 wouldn't happen without the approval
0:22:47 anyway of uh the authorities in Saudi
0:22:50 Arabia and it's quite shocking to see if
0:22:52 you're not used to seeing that in that
0:22:53 country and the concerts and all the
0:22:54 sort of things you you know like so so
0:22:56 this is the thing so we have to we have
0:22:58 to back up and it's it's not I think we
0:22:59 get lost when these sorts of issues are
0:23:01 talked about we get lost in the sort of
0:23:04 vague language of ruling by the Sharia
0:23:06 or not ruling by the Sharia or what are
0:23:08 the Met doing or the sort of like
0:23:10 advising them behind closed doors I
0:23:13 think that's a secondary issue compared
0:23:15 to who has the ultimate Authority and as
0:23:17 long as the state has the ultimate
0:23:19 Authority it will use religion for and
0:23:21 it will use Islam and the scholars and
0:23:24 everything
0:23:25 um as long as they're useful to you know
0:23:27 giving legitimacy towards you know even
0:23:29 their rule in general or to particular
0:23:32 projects or policies that they want but
0:23:34 the second they're not useful they have
0:23:36 that Authority they have the authority
0:23:37 to disband the internet to stop all the
0:23:39 lessons in the Haram they have the
0:23:41 authority to uh go back and and and
0:23:43 revise the textbooks which they have
0:23:45 done uh recently in Saudi Arabia and
0:23:48 change the curriculum right education
0:23:50 especially and this is something that
0:23:51 halak gives more importance to in
0:23:54 restating Oriental ISM education is
0:23:56 entirely centralized under the state
0:23:58 right it's not an independent thing
0:24:00 that's decentralized that's under the
0:24:01 supervision of the early map
0:24:03 um and so that's the difference if we're
0:24:05 talking about the difference between
0:24:06 Paradigm and uh Source right like that's
0:24:09 that's the trick and that's the rub
0:24:10 right Sharia is not just a source of law
0:24:13 it's not just the individual laws it is
0:24:16 an entire Paradigm
0:24:18 um and there's not a place on Earth
0:24:19 today where that Paradigm exists
0:24:22 um and that's the main thesis of the yes
0:24:23 go ahead no just to add a further strand
0:24:26 to this uh in the premises which is the
0:24:29 opening uh introductory chapter to The
0:24:32 Impossible uh state that we're
0:24:33 discussing
0:24:34 um the the author uh um discusses
0:24:37 another example of a paradigm uh a
0:24:40 non-islamic one uh which is to do with
0:24:42 uh which is defined in a sense the
0:24:45 modern nation state
0:24:47 um as we live it today and it's uh it's
0:24:50 the enlightenment States this is Page
0:24:51 seven and I wanted to read this
0:24:53 paragraph if I may for two reasons
0:24:55 reasons one
0:24:56 um because I want to give you an example
0:24:58 of the flavor of the way uh wallet
0:25:00 writes and I I'm not the only one I
0:25:02 think to find his writing style
0:25:05 um a little bit difficult uh to digest
0:25:08 um and it's a bit clunky perhaps once
0:25:11 one gets used to it one can go with the
0:25:12 flow you just uh you ride the tiger so
0:25:15 to speak but it is challenging to read
0:25:17 uh in terms as a literature I I can call
0:25:21 it literature but also perhaps more
0:25:23 importantly in reading this I want to
0:25:24 share with you his profound Insight
0:25:26 actually into the ruling Western
0:25:29 Paradigm politically to do with the
0:25:31 nation itself and he Roots this ideology
0:25:34 in the Enlightenment and and what he
0:25:36 says I think is uh very insightful now
0:25:39 it certainly Rings true for me so I'll
0:25:41 do my best to make what he writes
0:25:44 understandable by emphasizing certain
0:25:46 Clauses and paragraphs um he writes it's
0:25:49 just one paragraph the enlightenment
0:25:50 which obviously happened in Europe uh
0:25:53 highly relevant to our concerns he here
0:25:55 provides yet another example of a
0:25:58 paradigm now this word Paradigm by the
0:25:59 way is one of halleck's key terms
0:26:02 there is no doubt that this project
0:26:04 encompassed intellectual and political
0:26:06 movements that ranged across a wide
0:26:09 spectrum of intellectual difference
0:26:12 suffice it here to cite the
0:26:14 philosophical divergences of and
0:26:17 dramatically opposing Vault insurance
0:26:19 between and among that's where it's very
0:26:22 difficult language
0:26:24 um then he quotes Hobbs Voltaire or
0:26:26 Russo Hume Spinoza Kant Hegel j s Mill
0:26:30 and Marx to mention only a few
0:26:34 it would thus seem impossible to lump
0:26:37 them and many others together much less
0:26:40 the thought systems and movements they
0:26:42 generated under any single identifiable
0:26:45 category yet hello and this is the key
0:26:48 Insight which is why he's so clever in a
0:26:50 way it is eminently arguable that the
0:26:53 enlightenment in its totality in other
0:26:55 words overall overall the enlightenment
0:26:58 despite its kierkegaards and herders for
0:27:01 example these are idiosyncratic
0:27:03 um writers of the Enlightenment they
0:27:05 these writers overall exhibits a
0:27:08 paradigm one featuring a shared
0:27:11 substrate of assumptions and
0:27:13 presuppositions that bestows on it a
0:27:17 certain Unity despite its internal
0:27:20 multiplicity in other words all these
0:27:22 disparate internally contradictory
0:27:24 writers that emerge uh from the
0:27:27 enlightenment nevertheless a can be
0:27:29 characterized in a single way as John
0:27:32 Gray has aptly argued he quotes the core
0:27:36 project of the Enlightenment quote was
0:27:38 the displacement of local customary or
0:27:42 traditional moralities and all forms of
0:27:45 transcendental Faith all forms which I
0:27:47 know as religion is out
0:27:49 by a critical or rational morality which
0:27:54 was projected as the basis of a
0:27:56 universal civilization I'll just pause
0:27:58 here and give an example for my own uh
0:28:01 one of my favorite example is this book
0:28:02 there we go by Emmanuel Kant called the
0:28:05 groundwork for the metaphysic
0:28:07 metaphysics of morals it's not actually
0:28:09 very long I do really recommend it if
0:28:12 you want to get under the skin of
0:28:14 Enlightenment rationalist morality
0:28:16 exactly the sort of thing that Wallach
0:28:18 is talking about
0:28:19 and he continues this new morality which
0:28:23 uh Kant himself is a seminal thinker
0:28:26 this numerality is uh secular and
0:28:30 humanist and binding on all human beings
0:28:33 so kant's categorical imperative is by
0:28:36 definition a universal moral code that's
0:28:38 binding on everyone that's one of the
0:28:40 definitions of it would set Universal
0:28:43 standards for the assessment of all
0:28:45 human institutions as a quote of John
0:28:48 Gray there and then while it continues
0:28:50 under the command of human reason key
0:28:53 kantian term human reason finally
0:28:56 divorced of traditional principles of
0:28:59 morality the project would aim to create
0:29:01 a universal civilization
0:29:05 uh this is the project that animated
0:29:08 Marxism and liberalism in all of their
0:29:12 varieties I love the way that Wallach
0:29:13 here sees the common ideological or
0:29:15 philosophical root in Marxism and
0:29:18 liberalism you think of these normally
0:29:19 as being completely antithetical but
0:29:21 he's saying no they're both animated in
0:29:24 all their varieties by this principle
0:29:26 which underpins both new liberalism as
0:29:29 well and new neo-conservatism and he
0:29:32 concludes it is this core project that
0:29:35 is shared by all Enlightenment thinkers
0:29:37 however pessimistic or dystopic they may
0:29:41 sometimes be as to its historical
0:29:43 prospects this core project the
0:29:47 enlightenment project constituted the
0:29:49 central domain by which all major and
0:29:52 Central problems were solved and which
0:29:55 gave and continues to give direction for
0:29:57 better or worse to our ways of life end
0:30:01 quote that's page eight and I was when I
0:30:03 read this I was struck by
0:30:05 um just recently the news the the big
0:30:07 fuss that's been made uh over uh the uh
0:30:10 Qatar football
0:30:12 um uh tournament uh because uh guitar uh
0:30:16 dares to have a value system which is
0:30:19 derived from the Sharia we can be we can
0:30:21 use this word openly now and not be
0:30:22 ashamed to Proclaim what it is it's the
0:30:24 s word the Sharia word
0:30:26 um but the point about what I'm
0:30:28 mentioning that is given what I've just
0:30:29 quoted that it's the the universal
0:30:32 pretensions this Universal civilization
0:30:34 based on reason that is the
0:30:36 self-definition of the Enlightenment
0:30:38 project and is explicitly spoken of by
0:30:41 key thinkers like uh Kant in his
0:30:43 groundwork for the metaphysical morals
0:30:44 is what we are having to do with here A
0:30:47 A A an assumption of a global morality
0:30:49 uh that is explicitly desacralized the
0:30:53 social order which which has taken
0:30:55 morality of religious values out of it
0:30:58 and and obviously denies the Sharia its
0:31:01 Sovereign Place in the body politic
0:31:03 um anyway that would be my does wanted
0:31:05 to share that with you folks yeah that's
0:31:07 a brilliant quote and and I think we'll
0:31:08 we'll Circle back to a couple of the
0:31:10 themes there I think some of the
0:31:11 highlights of that quote are the
0:31:13 assumption that reason is universal and
0:31:15 homogeneous right and then that morality
0:31:18 can be founded on reason as opposed to
0:31:20 Revelation so the first point is exactly
0:31:23 what drives liberalism to be supremacist
0:31:25 and
0:31:27 um imperialist right why isn't there
0:31:29 sort of an ethic of well that's just how
0:31:32 the way they do things in Qatar why do
0:31:34 they feel the need to Stamp Out All
0:31:36 dissent right because the assumption
0:31:38 that reason is universal and morality is
0:31:41 founded the only way to have a universal
0:31:43 agreed upon civilization is to ground it
0:31:45 in of supposedly Universal reason and
0:31:48 now this is a morality that is sourced
0:31:51 or defined in something other than that
0:31:53 and so it needs to be uh Stamped Out
0:31:57 um we'll Circle basket that definitely
0:31:58 one of the things you know so we're
0:32:00 talking about
0:32:01 um why is this off so many people's
0:32:03 radar the difference you know you're
0:32:05 mentioning the enlightenment Paradigm
0:32:07 and the Sharia as a paradigm you know
0:32:09 why is this off so many people's radar
0:32:11 and and halach he sort of highlights how
0:32:14 some of the the language that we use
0:32:17 um and the way that we anachronistically
0:32:19 apply certain terms really obfuscates
0:32:22 and hides these realities right so we
0:32:25 use the word State and we use the word
0:32:27 citizenship in very careless and
0:32:29 imprecise ways that actually mask the
0:32:32 difference between the Sharia as a
0:32:35 paradigm versus the Sharia as a source
0:32:37 or a tool for legitimacy
0:32:39 um you know people will talk about the
0:32:42 um you know the original sort of
0:32:44 political situation in Medina right as
0:32:47 the constitution of Medina right or the
0:32:49 the the early Muslim state right and
0:32:52 there's a certain there's a certain
0:32:53 assumption going on here that the state
0:32:56 is a universal and trans-historical
0:32:59 category right that is that it literally
0:33:01 it's a substitute for any sort of
0:33:04 political Arrangement as opposed to
0:33:07 being a political a a particular
0:33:09 political technology and a specific set
0:33:12 of relations between government and
0:33:14 subject and law and morality right so
0:33:17 that's an extremely important uh pillar
0:33:19 of halak's thought is that the state is
0:33:21 not a universal or trans-historical
0:33:23 category the state is a particular set
0:33:26 of relations between subjects government
0:33:28 law and ethics or morality whatever have
0:33:31 you
0:33:32 um and so we can't look back in time
0:33:35 before the nation-state and call every
0:33:37 single system of government and every
0:33:39 sort of political Arrangement as a state
0:33:42 that is anachronistic and it actually
0:33:43 masks the types of changes that have
0:33:46 occurred
0:33:47 um the other term that obfuscates and
0:33:50 hides these things is the term of
0:33:51 citizenship you know citizenship is the
0:33:54 primary category of subjectivity in the
0:33:57 modern secular uh episteme and so when
0:34:00 when people think about themselves you
0:34:02 look at the map right the map's all
0:34:03 green over here and all pink over there
0:34:05 and we're thinking in terms of the
0:34:07 citizen okay and when we talk about
0:34:09 things in the past before there
0:34:10 literally was such a thing as
0:34:12 citizenship
0:34:13 um we refer to it as a citizen we refer
0:34:15 to the citizens of Medina or the
0:34:18 citizens of you know the early uh Muslim
0:34:20 empires there was no such thing as
0:34:22 citizenship because again citizenship is
0:34:25 actually referring to a particular set
0:34:27 of relations between subject and
0:34:29 government right citizenship is defined
0:34:31 by passports by Bureau uh bureaucracy by
0:34:35 AI having to register your birth and
0:34:37 your death and submit travel documents
0:34:39 if you want to move from here to there
0:34:41 all these sorts of things that were
0:34:42 unknown until very very recently so it's
0:34:45 not accurate it's anachronistic right to
0:34:48 apply these modern terms indefinitely
0:34:50 backwards in time and when we do it
0:34:53 actually masks and conceals from us the
0:34:56 changes that have happened in
0:34:58 subjectivity or subject Hood what was
0:35:00 the relationship between the subject and
0:35:02 the governing sort of apparatus if it
0:35:05 wasn't a state if we're using the same
0:35:07 words and the same terms to refer to all
0:35:10 of it we can't even begin to ask that
0:35:11 question so that's one of the things
0:35:13 that we're going to be kind of
0:35:14 deconstructing here
0:35:16 um and so if we are properly defining
0:35:19 what a state is we're not assuming that
0:35:21 it's this trans-historical Universal
0:35:23 category no the state is actually
0:35:25 something very particular that refers to
0:35:27 a particular set of relations then
0:35:30 halach is saying that once we
0:35:32 crystallize and Define what this is then
0:35:34 it will become clear that there is no
0:35:36 reclaiming the Sharia within the state
0:35:39 apparatus or the state system he his
0:35:42 assertion in this book is that the very
0:35:44 logic of the state as a political
0:35:48 technology as a set of relations
0:35:50 completely and categorically
0:35:53 um excludes the Sharia as a paradigmatic
0:35:57 force as a possibility anyway if I could
0:35:59 just as a amazing quote that really
0:36:01 shook me when I read it on page 10 in
0:36:04 the introductory chapter uh where um
0:36:06 halek writes we take it for granted that
0:36:09 no one can live outside of citizenship
0:36:11 for no one can find an independent space
0:36:14 outside the state there is no neutral
0:36:17 site between one state and another and
0:36:19 nothing allows a human being to be just
0:36:22 a human being without one without
0:36:25 political state-based affiliation that's
0:36:28 on uh page 10. and I thought wow what an
0:36:32 extraordinary Insight you talk about
0:36:33 thinking outside of the box because
0:36:35 literally you can't go anywhere and not
0:36:37 be a subject or citizen of a state you
0:36:40 just can't go into a field somewhere or
0:36:42 up a mountain because it's going to be
0:36:44 some somewhere some government somewhere
0:36:46 is going to claim that I just thought
0:36:48 actually maybe that's not quite maybe
0:36:49 parts of Antarctica uh I I don't know
0:36:52 I'm not claimed by anyone quite yet or
0:36:55 maybe America Claims it all I don't know
0:36:57 it may be part of the moon or not I
0:36:59 don't know but it's just interesting
0:37:00 that you're not we're not free of States
0:37:01 anywhere we go we are obliged to be
0:37:04 State subjects or state citizens and and
0:37:06 that struck me as a very modern thing
0:37:08 because in the past you could just roam
0:37:10 around and and not be as subject of a
0:37:13 state or a citizen like we are today or
0:37:15 have complex allegiances right have
0:37:17 allegiances to more than one sort of um
0:37:20 body politic whether you know you would
0:37:22 have an allegiance to your sort of
0:37:24 religious body politic and then you
0:37:26 would have a particular government that
0:37:28 was responsible for you and then maybe
0:37:30 even others right so and this is
0:37:32 something that halak gets to and also
0:37:33 gets to in his books about yeah
0:37:35 simplification the simplification of
0:37:37 both time and space that's one of the
0:37:39 Hallmarks of modernity
0:37:41 so due to this due to these sort of
0:37:43 competing paradigms right like the
0:37:45 modern State as a paradigm and Sharia as
0:37:47 a paradigm the state cannot possibly
0:37:49 promote Islamic values except when done
0:37:53 selectively and when convenient to the
0:37:56 state and if you just look at the
0:37:58 history of the ummah and especially in
0:38:00 contemporary times we see that playing
0:38:02 out every single day the modern State
0:38:05 this is the last sort of comment for the
0:38:06 the intro the modern State exists now in
0:38:10 a period of Crisis and a moral
0:38:12 predicament and so why are we talking
0:38:14 about these things right now we believe
0:38:15 that you know we're not trying to go
0:38:17 backwards in time necessarily though
0:38:19 there are some certain things back in
0:38:22 time that are
0:38:23 they're worth recapturing or trying to
0:38:26 trying to recapture but really the
0:38:28 modern state has reached a point of
0:38:30 Crisis
0:38:31 um and we believe that the Sharia
0:38:34 specifically and Islam generally has the
0:38:36 solutions to these crises and the
0:38:38 solutions to these uh to the
0:38:40 predicaments that the modern world finds
0:38:41 itself in and halak says that they are
0:38:44 not simply political crises they're not
0:38:46 simply economic crises that these are
0:38:49 fundamentally moral crises right and
0:38:52 that they are secondarily political or
0:38:54 economic and it's exactly the
0:38:57 distinction and the separation of law
0:39:00 and the state from morality that was
0:39:03 that's the Hallmark of the modern state
0:39:05 that has got us in this mess in the
0:39:07 first place people don't quite grasp
0:39:09 that I just ask a simple question but
0:39:10 citizens of the UK like I am or you the
0:39:12 United States or France from Germany any
0:39:14 Western Country and you ask you ask if
0:39:16 you're of your your governments your
0:39:17 rulers what is it to be a good person
0:39:20 how should I morally live it does go
0:39:23 exists if he does how am I to follow him
0:39:27 um and I can go to there's a really hot
0:39:29 button moral issues and the government
0:39:31 will not give you an answer he won't
0:39:33 tell you how to live your life it is a
0:39:35 moral-free Zone and indeed many would
0:39:37 say that's the point they don't want to
0:39:39 be uh morally uh charged except now with
0:39:43 this emergence kind of Quasi religion
0:39:45 and wokeism which is slightly different
0:39:47 but it doesn't really it doesn't really
0:39:48 get to the metaphysics or the philosophy
0:39:50 of life it's just arguing about certain
0:39:53 alternative Lifestyles which are
0:39:55 arguably extremely minor are marginal
0:39:58 issues although they they for some
0:40:01 reason have taken center stage in
0:40:03 Western uh discourse and political
0:40:05 posturing particularly towards guitar as
0:40:07 we've already said goodness knows why
0:40:09 because this particular issue without
0:40:10 going into it or you know is very
0:40:12 marginal affects very few people
0:40:14 numerically and yet it's so Central
0:40:16 apparently it's because of what it
0:40:19 represents right yeah
0:40:22 exactly so but the point is the
0:40:24 governments won't give if I was to go to
0:40:26 10 Downing Street or go up to
0:40:27 Pennsylvania Avenue and say Mr ruler how
0:40:31 should I live my life to be a good
0:40:32 person he'll say go and talk to you go
0:40:35 go away you know he won't tell you or
0:40:37 they probably say vote for me or
0:40:38 something but it's not there it's not
0:40:41 meant to be part of the DNA of a modern
0:40:42 State and but Islam are called the
0:40:45 Islamic understanding of society much
0:40:46 more holistic and moral there's a moral
0:40:49 evaluation of the human being as a as a
0:40:52 person who is created by God with
0:40:54 certain obligations and duties to the
0:40:57 poor and the weak and so it's a very
0:40:59 rich complex moral Universe in the
0:41:02 public sphere which has been removed I
0:41:04 think from look at France for example
0:41:06 the LA isite is being deliberately uh
0:41:09 eviscerated that's the word
0:41:11 um from the public domain
0:41:13 yes and that's not to say that the state
0:41:15 does not have metaphysical assumptions
0:41:17 or does not at the end of the day have
0:41:19 certain moral assumptions it does
0:41:21 however it doesn't self-understand as
0:41:24 taking stances on moral issues or
0:41:28 participating in the
0:41:30 um moral sort of formation of its
0:41:33 subjects and so the morality that is
0:41:35 kind of asserted by those sorts of
0:41:37 forces is very thin it's very very thin
0:41:40 compared to it's like they say like you
0:41:42 can't not do philosophy either you're
0:41:44 doing it well or you're doing it poorly
0:41:45 right so it's a similar thing when it
0:41:47 comes to moral formation you can imagine
0:41:49 that you're not doing moral formation
0:41:51 but in reality either you realize that
0:41:53 you're doing it and so you're paying
0:41:55 attention to it and doing it sort of
0:41:56 well or you don't realize the ways in
0:41:58 which you're doing it and you're doing
0:41:59 it very poorly is the secularism or
0:42:02 secular liberalism would be one way of
0:42:04 describing the ideology or the
0:42:06 philosophical underpinnings of Western
0:42:07 Civilization which is formed this which
0:42:10 attempts is forming its citizens to look
0:42:12 at the world in a certain and very
0:42:14 secular narrowly liberal defined way
0:42:16 yeah
0:42:17 and so the moral predicament of the
0:42:19 modern State halach identifies three uh
0:42:22 major sort of nodes or points of Crisis
0:42:25 one is the collapse of organic social
0:42:27 units uh the family and religion number
0:42:31 two is the rise of oppressive economic
0:42:34 forms in a different and specific way
0:42:37 from what we've seen in the pre-modern
0:42:38 era and then three and this is the most
0:42:40 essential one for halak and I think good
0:42:44 on him for for stressing this throughout
0:42:46 his works is the not just destruction
0:42:48 but the extinction of the environment
0:42:50 right all of these three sort of things
0:42:53 and crises were not possible without the
0:42:56 uh without the unhinging or decoupling
0:43:00 of morality from the state or from the
0:43:02 political technology the system of
0:43:04 governments governance whatever you want
0:43:06 to call it and we'll get into because
0:43:07 there's some doubts that people have
0:43:09 about that we'll we'll unpack that later
0:43:11 um but before moving on to the first
0:43:12 chapter premises um halach makes a
0:43:15 really interesting comment in passing he
0:43:16 does it twice and um it's significant to
0:43:19 me personally because
0:43:20 um you know halak is in the tradition of
0:43:23 Foucault you know you're talking about
0:43:24 why he's so difficult to read well I
0:43:26 blame Foucault because he's in the he's
0:43:27 in the tradition of Foucault and he
0:43:28 follows in his footsteps with a lot of
0:43:30 things
0:43:31 um he he notes something just in passing
0:43:34 that there's a similarity in Islamic
0:43:37 critiques of modernity and post-modern
0:43:40 critiques of modernity and I I thought
0:43:42 that was very very fascinating because I
0:43:44 also when I was coming to Islam I felt
0:43:46 that sort of um you know Confluence or
0:43:49 that that overlap and then he said what
0:43:52 we're trying to get into now the project
0:43:54 of sort of historical and moral
0:43:57 retrieval of a past episteme or a past
0:44:01 set of relations right is something that
0:44:03 is also shared by both uh by both sort
0:44:07 of the aspiring Islamic uh sort of
0:44:11 episteme and also a post-modern one as
0:44:13 well trying to reclaim the Lost World
0:44:16 um that has been destroyed and if yeah
0:44:20 last name because a lot of people you
0:44:22 know and rightfully so post-modernism
0:44:24 gets a lot of heat as well as it should
0:44:26 but here's a trailer for the for the
0:44:28 next video series when we get into
0:44:30 um uh restating orientalism I think
0:44:32 there's a crucial distinction between
0:44:35 sort of the the track that post-modern
0:44:38 theorists when when after Edward Saeed
0:44:41 and the trajectory that halaka is on
0:44:45 um I think that Saeed very much sort of
0:44:48 shaped
0:44:49 um or paved the way for a lot of the
0:44:50 woke politics and the things that we see
0:44:52 today that we find so distasteful
0:44:54 whereas it didn't necessarily you know
0:44:56 not everything within sort of
0:44:58 post-structuralist or post-modern
0:44:59 thought had to be that way in fact even
0:45:01 if you go back to Foucault there's many
0:45:03 things worth salvaging in the works of
0:45:05 Foucault when it comes to analyzing and
0:45:07 critiquing the modern world and the
0:45:09 modern episteme and as halakas is I
0:45:11 think brilliant to point out there's
0:45:13 actually a lot of uh overlap there in
0:45:15 those things
0:45:17 um so in the the first chapter premises
0:45:19 he's talking he he poses a central
0:45:21 question he says how did okay so if they
0:45:23 didn't have a state if Muslims did not
0:45:25 have a state then how did they rule
0:45:26 themselves before the state came onto
0:45:28 the scene what type of political rule uh
0:45:31 did they adopt and what are they
0:45:33 adopting now is it something that we can
0:45:35 call the Sharia or not and so this is
0:45:37 where he's going to go a little bit more
0:45:39 into detail with his difference between
0:45:40 the Sharia as a paradigm versus the
0:45:43 Sharia as a source and it's extremely
0:45:45 significant to register here that all of
0:45:48 the political Arrangement that we have
0:45:49 throughout the world today in the Muslim
0:45:51 lands it is inherited from the
0:45:53 post-colonial state
0:45:54 even the places even the places that
0:45:56 weren't formally colonized like Iran or
0:45:58 or uh or turkey
0:46:01 um the type of relations between
0:46:03 government and subject and law and
0:46:05 morality are all inherited from the
0:46:08 logic of somewhere else right the
0:46:10 colonial state in turkey's case France
0:46:13 explicitly adopted by Ataturk in the
0:46:16 French Republic
0:46:17 and so the places even that have
0:46:19 achieved Independence a type of
0:46:21 independence from their former Colonial
0:46:23 Masters they have a very formal type of
0:46:27 Independence however they are not yet
0:46:29 independent from the Paradigm of law and
0:46:31 the definition of law and the Paradigm
0:46:34 the the sort of uh even worldview that
0:46:37 they had inherited from these Colonial
0:46:39 systems and so what we see we see
0:46:42 something mismatched and this is what
0:46:43 you know
0:46:44 um halak I think he uses the term that
0:46:46 the Muslim World sits uncomfortably
0:46:49 within the political technology of the
0:46:51 state
0:46:52 um we have these uh sort of
0:46:53 authoritarian regime teams and
0:46:55 oppressive regimes and failed States and
0:46:57 things like that throughout the Muslim
0:46:59 world
0:47:00 and it damages the reputation of the
0:47:02 Sharia insofar as if any one of them
0:47:04 claims to represent the Sharia or claims
0:47:06 to apply the Sharia because in reality
0:47:08 again according to halach and I agree
0:47:10 with him there is no Sharia there even
0:47:13 if there are certain individual laws
0:47:15 that are sourced from the Sharia the
0:47:17 whole Paradigm is not there and so when
0:47:19 things are applied sort of haphazardly
0:47:22 and halfway we get a mutant right we get
0:47:25 some sort of um some sort of new thing
0:47:27 that is uh has the violence of the state
0:47:30 and a certain sort of
0:47:32 um you know all of the baggage all those
0:47:34 moral sort of issues that we just talked
0:47:37 about that are part and parcel of the
0:47:39 modern state but now they have a they
0:47:41 have an Islamic veneer which is even
0:47:44 more sort of discouraging and uh
0:47:46 disconcerting so we're living with this
0:47:48 political technology that was forced
0:47:50 upon us and we're essentially as Halal
0:47:53 says we're we're living somebody else's
0:47:54 history right the idea of a state like
0:47:57 the political technology and the
0:47:59 relationships that we have now does not
0:48:01 come it's not sourced it was not it was
0:48:03 not originated within Muslim lands okay
0:48:06 it was started in Europe right from
0:48:09 particular historical circumstances from
0:48:11 particular intellectual Trends we're
0:48:13 talking we talked about the
0:48:14 enlightenment
0:48:16 um certain sort of developments and
0:48:17 technology and the pro the relations
0:48:19 between uh production and consumer and
0:48:22 these sorts of things with the
0:48:23 Industrial Revolution you have the
0:48:25 American and French sort of
0:48:26 constitutional traditions and the
0:48:28 revolutions all of these things are
0:48:30 sourced within Europe okay so the state
0:48:32 is a very very European thing and we'll
0:48:35 talk in the following chapter for next
0:48:37 video about what makes a state a state
0:48:39 halach identifies five things that are
0:48:41 essential components of the state and
0:48:43 one of these is that it is a European
0:48:45 thing it's not even Universal now a
0:48:48 little much less even like
0:48:49 trans-historically looking into the past
0:48:51 but even now it's something that was uh
0:48:55 that was a product of the laboratory of
0:48:57 Europe and European experience and even
0:48:59 the references to political sort of
0:49:02 antecedents or excuse me precedence
0:49:04 outside of Europe they're really just
0:49:06 more about legitimizing like so you know
0:49:08 we talk about Athens we talk about the
0:49:10 Magna Carta you know these sorts of
0:49:12 things that were part of yes Europe
0:49:13 Mainland but pre-modern okay okay
0:49:16 they're really more for legitimization
0:49:18 purposes and if you were actually to
0:49:20 compare
0:49:21 um we couldn't call those States you
0:49:23 know we might call them proto-states or
0:49:24 things that had an implication or a
0:49:27 bearing upon the modern state but it's
0:49:29 not the same thing at all the the state
0:49:31 is is European and the state is truly
0:49:32 modern and very very recent so if we're
0:49:36 stuck with this Arrangement if we're
0:49:37 stuck with this relationship between
0:49:39 this particular relationship between
0:49:40 government and subject and law and
0:49:42 morality then we're not being allowed to
0:49:45 truly draw Upon Our Own history or our
0:49:47 own historical experience in a
0:49:49 paradigmatic way in a fundamental way we
0:49:52 have to use the house that is given to
0:49:55 us by the European colonists and we're
0:49:57 allowed to bring in some you know pieces
0:49:59 of art or furniture from our own sort of
0:50:01 tradition but the house itself the house
0:50:03 itself has to be of this sort of
0:50:05 European just a very small foot I was
0:50:07 talking to a friend of mine who is
0:50:09 Egyptian and um he was talking about the
0:50:12 state of Egypt at the moment I don't
0:50:13 want to go down that particular path but
0:50:15 they've recently had to go to the IMF to
0:50:18 bail out the country which is billions
0:50:20 of dollars in debt and they're becoming
0:50:21 the IMF being an American economic
0:50:23 institution they're the dependence of a
0:50:25 very ancients and Noble Muslim Society
0:50:28 or state whatever on the west continues
0:50:31 uh in quite degrading ways for the for
0:50:35 the Egyptian people and there's such a
0:50:37 it's such a tragic and sad story to hear
0:50:40 the details of what's going on in Egypt
0:50:41 at the moment and Egypt is better than
0:50:43 some other countries one could one could
0:50:45 mention
0:50:46 um uh it's just it's the degradation the
0:50:48 support this this subordination of
0:50:50 Muslim countries to the West
0:50:51 economically in the very and the way
0:50:54 that IMF is imposing conditions on
0:50:57 getting these huge loans in terms of
0:50:59 privatization and other disruptions to
0:51:01 the Eternal order of Egyptian Society
0:51:03 it's just one quick snapshot nothing
0:51:05 very uh fascinating but but it
0:51:09 illustrates what's going on at the
0:51:10 moment in this asymmetry of power and
0:51:13 the way these uh economic arrangements
0:51:15 and political Arrangements still
0:51:16 disadvantage in some ways Muslim
0:51:18 countries even now as we speak
0:51:21 very much so yeah so the modern State
0:51:23 you know let's say the state is a
0:51:25 product of modernity it assumes
0:51:27 modernity and we'll talk about that and
0:51:30 what that is in a second and it also
0:51:31 assumes progress and we're going to
0:51:33 unpack that in a second okay because
0:51:35 progress has to do with certain beliefs
0:51:37 metaphysical beliefs about time
0:51:39 metaphysical beliefs about space and
0:51:41 value right what is good what's not good
0:51:44 um and so you know halak points to three
0:51:46 sort of things to kind of because
0:51:47 somebody could say this is always sort
0:51:49 of like a knee-jerk comment that we that
0:51:51 we get in the the comment section of
0:51:52 these sorts of things everything's
0:51:54 always been the same
0:51:55 the pre-modern period is the same as the
0:51:57 modern period there's no real difference
0:51:58 there's always been War there's always
0:52:00 been uh corruption there's always been
0:52:02 this these are sort of um again
0:52:04 transhistorical and Universal forces
0:52:06 um halak points to three things and says
0:52:08 not so fast there is there is a
0:52:10 difference there is actually quite a
0:52:11 significant difference because whereas
0:52:14 the doctrine of modern modernity and
0:52:16 progress
0:52:18 um they justify themselves as having
0:52:20 triumphed over pre-modernity in three
0:52:22 key ways one of them through poverty and
0:52:25 disease right so the argument is that
0:52:27 well we've got it so much better now
0:52:28 back in the Middle Ages you know you
0:52:30 were wiped out by the plague and you had
0:52:31 you just lived in poverty and you know
0:52:33 these sorts of things the second is
0:52:35 freedom and specifically individual
0:52:37 Freedom okay back then you didn't have
0:52:40 the freedom to wear what you wanted to
0:52:41 wear to do what you wanted to do now we
0:52:43 have freedom and then finally wealth and
0:52:45 standard of living okay so we are richer
0:52:48 than we've ever been and so this is a
0:52:50 supposedly a self-evident sort of
0:52:52 um you know a piece of empirical
0:52:54 evidence for why uh the the state is a
0:52:57 positive force and we've gotten so far
0:52:59 and modernity is doing great and
0:53:00 progress is excellent
0:53:02 um but you know uh uh halak pulls us
0:53:05 back and he says well wait a second
0:53:06 let's let's look at all of these you
0:53:08 know individually he says poverty
0:53:09 disease and famine yes it was true that
0:53:11 it existed in the pre-modern sphere but
0:53:13 before modernity before the state this
0:53:16 was something that was natural right it
0:53:18 was something that the the disease came
0:53:20 naturally the famine came naturally the
0:53:22 poverty came naturally whereas in the
0:53:25 modern era one of the Hallmarks of the
0:53:26 modern era is that these things are
0:53:27 man-made you have man-made diseases you
0:53:30 have man-made poverty you have greed
0:53:32 right and the type of inequality that we
0:53:34 see in the world
0:53:36 um absolutely staggering inequality
0:53:38 that's getting worse and worse by the
0:53:39 second is something that is of a
0:53:41 particular modern flavor
0:53:43 um if we're going to point to the
0:53:44 freedom and individuality you know halak
0:53:46 points back he says well we have this
0:53:47 fractured social structure the fractured
0:53:50 family the destruction of community
0:53:51 right this has been the price to pay and
0:53:55 then finally if the modern era is
0:53:57 superior because of wealth and standard
0:53:59 of living He says again what's the cost
0:54:01 the cost has been the absolute
0:54:02 destruction and distinct and extinction
0:54:04 of the natural world
0:54:06 right so
0:54:07 um you know halak pushes back he says
0:54:09 okay yes it is very very different the
0:54:12 first of all for those of you who are
0:54:13 going to say that everything's always
0:54:15 just been the same it's just you know
0:54:16 different actors appearing and
0:54:18 disappearing from stage no pre-modernity
0:54:20 is categorically different from
0:54:22 modernity modernity is a thing and it's
0:54:24 a particular thing modernity sees itself
0:54:26 as being Superior to what came before it
0:54:28 and we'll talk more about that it looks
0:54:30 like we're running out of time so
0:54:31 perhaps next video
0:54:33 um whereas halaka is pushing back
0:54:34 against that and saying no no it's not
0:54:36 it's not that simple as that modernity
0:54:39 has uh crises and has particular
0:54:42 problems that are rooted in its entire
0:54:44 episteme that are rooted in the the DNA
0:54:48 of the thing okay the very very
0:54:50 structure of modernity and the state and
0:54:52 the sort of idea about what it is that
0:54:54 we're doing here it's not incidental
0:54:56 it's not that we just need more
0:54:58 modernity or that technology is going to
0:55:00 save us or once we invent the right
0:55:02 vaccine or we invent the right uh we're
0:55:04 able to grow food on Mars or whatever it
0:55:06 is then we'll be safe that's that's
0:55:08 missing the entire point the entire
0:55:10 point that halak is trying to point out
0:55:12 is that these crises that we've gotten
0:55:14 into in the first place uh are exactly
0:55:17 because of the modern episteme the
0:55:18 modern separation between uh morality
0:55:22 and the state and the state is the
0:55:24 largest sort of player in this if we're
0:55:26 looking for what's the relationship
0:55:27 between modernity in the State uh
0:55:28 modernity we could say is the sort of uh
0:55:31 is the episteme as all these sort of
0:55:32 metaphysical sort of relationships or
0:55:34 assumptions and the state is the largest
0:55:37 player in enforcing these assumptions
0:55:39 and these metaphysics and these values
0:55:42 um so next time uh and because we're
0:55:45 running up against prayer here
0:55:47 um next time you know there's a charge
0:55:49 here that is made against halach and
0:55:51 others uh who sort of adopt this posture
0:55:54 this anti-modern posture which is that
0:55:57 and I personally believe that any sort
0:55:59 of
0:56:00 um true Sharia Paradigm or worldview has
0:56:04 to be anti-modern um in a specific
0:56:07 definition of what modernity is the
0:56:09 modernity not as what's new or what's
0:56:11 now but modernity as halach defines it
0:56:13 as a certain relationship and
0:56:15 metaphysical assumption and values
0:56:18 um so people are going to charge you
0:56:19 with romanticism
0:56:20 many people are going to say that oh
0:56:21 you're just looking back on the past
0:56:23 with rose tinted glasses and you think
0:56:25 things were so great well it wasn't so
0:56:27 great
0:56:27 um so halak takes time to unpack one of
0:56:30 the most Central doctrines of modern
0:56:34 thought and modernism which is the
0:56:36 doctrine of progress and it's an
0:56:38 extremely extremely significant portion
0:56:40 of the book responds to a lot of
0:56:42 people's knee-jerk reactions against all
0:56:44 of these types of conversations and
0:56:46 inshallah
0:56:47 next time we'll get into that and then
0:56:50 what are the defining features of a
0:56:53 state in the following chapter yeah
0:56:55 brilliant they're very much looking
0:56:56 forward to that I I can't be just giving
0:56:58 my my uh my usual favorite quote from um
0:57:01 uh his work uh hallak's work which I've
0:57:04 mentioned before but I just want to
0:57:05 repeat it because I love it so much he
0:57:07 says let us remember what secularism is
0:57:09 secularism of course is a key aspect of
0:57:11 modernity
0:57:13 um secularism is not just segregating
0:57:15 religious life into the private sphere
0:57:17 oh no it's not just that it is rather
0:57:19 digital elimination of the state of what
0:57:22 religion is and is not where and how it
0:57:26 can be exercised in terms of political
0:57:29 theology secularism is the murder of God
0:57:32 by the state that's the most dramatic
0:57:35 statement I've ever heard in my life
0:57:36 it's almost Shakespeare could have said
0:57:37 that the state can delimit limit exclude
0:57:41 or could tell any religious practice and
0:57:43 thus has the power to determine the
0:57:45 quality and quantity of the religious
0:57:47 sphere as it sees fit uh and and that is
0:57:51 a very that's where he does his prose is
0:57:54 very Sublime occasionally he writes like
0:57:56 an Angel sometimes he doesn't
0:57:58 um but on that on that occasion he
0:58:00 writes with almost Shakespearean passion
0:58:02 and uh it's one of my all-time favorite
0:58:04 quotes so thank you very much Imam Tom
0:58:07 uh indeed for uh you're incredibly lucid
0:58:09 and erudite exposition of the work of uh
0:58:13 this author wallet The Impossible State
0:58:16 Islam politics and modernity's moral
0:58:18 particular I do recommend this book with
0:58:21 all the caveats about its occasional
0:58:22 impenetrable English but it's not
0:58:24 impenetrable it's just a bit challenging
0:58:27 um and I do recommend
0:58:28 um imam's uh Imam Tom's fantastic
0:58:30 YouTube channel entitled Utica Masjid
0:58:33 which I will link to in the description
0:58:35 below please do subscribe
0:58:39 um thank you Tom for your time thank you
0:58:43 okay I look forward to our next to our
0:58:45 next session inshallah