Tolerant in the world and consequentially, the most advanced civilization in the world. Mustafa akyol guides his readers through islamic ideology and all of its twists and turns to explain how islam got to where it is and why it needs reform. He drawls also from economic and political history to show how islam began and racism and coercive power. The reform that he advocates has to come from muslims themselves, so the book is largely addressed to them, but it is also addressed to the nonmuslim world and especially westerners who misunderstood islam, including those who are apologists who claim theres nothing wrong with islam and islam a phobos who often forget their own religious history of bloodshed, intolerance and d reform. Mustafa has written an important book i expect will become a reference for many years to come. It is not a book about Public Policy but it is consequential in that regard because the way that islam is interpreted in and outside of the muslim world affects the range of Public Policy from Energy Policy and immigration to Foreign Policy and security to a whole range of civil liberty including free speech and so on. Before i introduce mustafa, i want to remind the viewers, the audience, they can submit questions on the webpage and social media platforms on facebook, twitter and youtube using the hashtag cato books. Mustafa akyol is a senior fellow at the center for global liberty and prosperity here at the Cato Institute where he focuses on islam and modernity. He writes a regular column for the new york times. Hes the author of several books in english including islam without extremes and the author of six books in turkish. Hes been visiting fellow at Wellesley College and he has been a columnist for about a decade for the two turkish newspapers and joined the Cato Institute several years ago after he it became difficult and indeed impossible and unsafe for him to do his work in turkey. Also mustafa is a very nice guy. Welcome, mustafa. Thank you so much. Thats a very generous introduction. It really plays into this forum and thank you to jack who will speak out after me. Im grateful to him for writing a powerful endorsement for my book which the readers can see on the cover. Greetings to everybody watching today. I say this because this is the first day of the holy month of ramadan this year which means hundreds of millions of muslims were around the world will be fasting in the next days. That means that from sunrise to sunset people will not eat or drink anything. So its hard. But theres a lot of beauty in ramadan and fasting. I grew up with that culture in turkey. You anxiously wait for the breaking and theres entertainment for kids. Theres a lot of beauty in ramadan which im sure we will see around the world in the next 30 days. But we might see some ugliness as well. What i have in mind there is what i call ramadan policing, which what can see in saudi arabia often being the most rigid as well as iran, pakistan and malaysia. In these countries if you show up during the day in ramadan drinking a glass of water or having a sandwich, the police will come after you. They might find you and might even give you a prison sentence. They seem to believe fasting is not just an act of individual worship to please god, but also in act of collective discipline to the states. That is a strong manifestation of the problem that im addressing in the book reopening muslim minds not the whole muslim world for sure which is a diverse place. It shouldnt be seen as a monolith. I prepared for the Cato Institute a few months ago and show some countries like albania but in north africa the least and Southeast Asia there are several that have a huge problem with the religious and liberalism. About a two dozen countries today have blasphemy laws which means if someone says something offensive against the prophet mohammed or others even just illegitimately, he or she may have pinned up in prison for years. Unfortunately this happens quite often in pakistan. In a dozen countries there are laws that mean if the muslim publicly gives up the fate to become a christian or atheist or some other conviction he or she may be failed and give a death penalty. It works in another way we have seen in the past several decades in some muslim countries, islamic regimes and socalled. Muslim scholars are intellectuals who just have reformist views about islam and can be condemn although they are believers. Who condemns them, some groups so they can be targeted, executed. We know that when you silence one person is a tragedy for another because you block the society for rethinking these issues. In these countries such as saudi arabia, pakistan, afghanistan, there are discriminatory laws against women or religious minorities. Theres also doctrines that preach obedience to the ruler as a religious duty no matter how tyrannical the ruler may be as long as he upholds the bureaucracy. Because there is a deeper problem because they come from certain classical jurisprudence that is the interpretation of the tradition. To be able to speak on this accountability of the human rights today, i believe we need to address these issues and we need a major reform and islamic law. What kind of reform, whats the goal . I define it in a simple one definition, giving up the course of power in the name of the fate not that they shouldnt be practicing but muslims shouldnt coerce other people to be practicing or to be muslims or to be from their own conviction. This is nothing to do with what some have seen as a historical analogy. Like john locke who offered the reinterpretation to save it from its own centuries old marriage with the coercive power of the state. Therefore my book is making a call for and argument for economic enlightenment. Not in an enlightenment that goes against religion but reinterprets religion based on freedom and not coercion. Now how does it look first of all i have chapters in the book about the burning issues i just mentioned, chapters about the matter of policing and theres two separate chapters about blasphemy. In those chapters i argue that reasonably speaking they have observed in these matters because of force. It doesnt make people pious, faithful or respectful to islam. Scripturally speaking they also have no basis in the koran. The only undisputed source of islam they have some basis in the sources such as in syria and i said to say some things and reported acts of the prophet prt mohammed. But a careful reading in context as some scholars have already pointed out and i would refer to their works scholars are in the modern era. But these issues of the blasphemy laws they are just the tips of the iceberg. There is a deeper story that i define in the book as the state of islam. Its centuries after the birth of christianity but what im arguing in the book is that this early marriage of the state was a historical contingency. What does this mean . I will try to explain the argument in a nutshell the former merchants began the first forms a Small Community of believer. They were oppressed by the establishment in the city. In the term, what did they ask for . They asked for the right to be able to live their fate and preach their fate and speak out against policies and idolatry. They asked for, in other words as i put it in my book, what we call freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Third, this makes us quite clear in a lot of them the prophet mohammed is commended to say to you your religion and to me line, which is in chapter 109 or six. Others speak to the prophet mohammed himself and tells him keep on preaching you are only a preacher, not a con teller. That is 28 and 22. Now in my book i asked a question that isnt as much asked in islamic tradition. What would have happened if they accepted the call for freedom of religion or freedom of speech but they just stopped oppressing the muslims and let them do practice and preach the religion. Then i argue we would have a very different history of islam. What happened was they kept persecuting and even came close to murdering the prophet and thats why others fled where they soon established and army and began collecting taxes in the community and brought in some legislation. It was an armed policy and this policy had several policies with their allies for the survival of the community as i argued and as some scholars right. There are chapters and some sections about these battles and fighting the believers and infidels in some passages. Now, one problem is the leader tradition conceived as this phase as the final and definitive form of islam not in the historical contingency but a divine mandated blueprint. This became a religious view and not just a historical interpretation. As far as saying that the worst is from this period that called for toleration and not coercion were abrogated and rendered ineffective. They were abrogated by the words that actually called for the war against the unbelievers, the infidels and who are they is a different discussion in islam but not going to get into that here. The law appeared in the islamic tradition and didnt have a basis in the car on which was very similar to this byzantine law that existed in that time. One thing i do in the book is to call on fellow muslims to rethink and reconsider how this marriage with the state influenced our religion. Theres these issues rather than piety that i highlighted in my book very often when you bring the state and religion together. In this state such as the empire introduced and supported the doctrine that i mentioned because they needed and aggressive interpretation. They also introduced the doctrine because they realized that if people think in fatalistic terms they become more obedient. Its about revisiting some theological doctrines and disputes and islam. It influences our ability to see it as contextual or more absolute. Another theological dispute that is central and begins with that discussion is what i call a dilemma that comes from people familiar with philosophy and its about whether the divine commitment in the ethical values constitutes them. According to the first view there were ethical values in the human reason and conscience known in the tradition as natural law. They may reinterpret them as the conflict changes. According to the second view, the commitments themselves were the only source of right and wrong. In the book i show a wrong turn was taken centuries ago making the divine commitment as a dominant outlook but it was a turn that wasnt mandated. I recommend checking my book and the audience and finally i want to thank the scholars i quoted in my book. I relied on the Academic Work of modern experts on this just putting them into one big accessible argument so again im very thankful to them. I am also deeply thankful and grateful to those i quoted in my book in the classical era or today who made some important arguments before reopening the muslim lines as i would call it, but they paid the price by being excommunicated a problem that in my view covered the beauties of my fate with the solitary that comes from the interpretation that we can visit and change. Thank you. Thanks very much. I want to remind the audience if they want to submit questions they can do so so through the webpage and social media accounts and youtube using the hashtag cato books on the religion, politics and culture he is a distinguished Professor Emeritus of english and religious studies at the university of california irvine and a senior fellow for religion and International Affairs at the Pacific Council on international policy. His book galled a biography won the Pulitzer Prize in 1996 and hes also the author of several other books including god and the charon. He served as the editor for the Los Angeles Times book review and his writings have appeared widely in such places as the atlantic, new york times, washington post, boston globe and so on. I dont know doctor miles as well as i know mustafa akyol, but mustafa tells me that he iss also a nice guy. Welcome. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here. I want to thank you and the Cato Institute for your support of this event and all the subjects that have never been more important than they are today. I thought i might begin by telling how mustafa and i came together for the first time. The book islam without extreme at the university of california irvine i thought it was terrific. Got a copy of the book and its lived up to. I invited him to speak for us and he began his regards discovering the paths change, the pancakes with butter and syrup at mcdonalds and the street but he thought if you want to the pancake in america you had to find a mcdonalds. He didnt realize even people like jack miles created their own. This was an example that someone from one country can make going into another and and analogy to consider another religion but its a very disarming and appealing way to begin and come across at that moment is a very nice guy. But the mind like this and this new book like his previous books brought to the newly intent degree is very, very close with all of its parts together. There is no part that contributes and he makes the case by a muslim for other muslims when he uses the pronoun that he doesnt have we lost science. And its true going as a tourist it can be a learning experience most especially if the past you are visiting is normal and you hear stories not just about your mother and father that your grandparents, greatgrandparents. [inaudible] he began hearing stories like this from your own deep past and your attention is absolutely riveted has the potential to deliver to the first instance the englishspeaking Muslim Community of the United States that i considered a pivotal community because they come from all over the world. Of the various traditions. Its really impossible not just because of the neutrality of the american state but also because of the character of the Muslim Population here. So, it is possible that the educated Muslim Population of the United States led by scholars who can also write with the cogency and term of journalists like mustafa can produce something that will be of a moral importance but because it is so big the world cannot solve many of its problems unless the muslims come along and even assume leadership roles for their size and weight most World Problems will not be solved at all. I had initially thought in the remainder of my remarks i would join the very beginning of the book to the end. I said a moment ago beautifully together while the latter three all begin with the word Freedom Matters and it is the Freedom Matters blasphemy. I wanted to link these three chapters beginning with freedom to a story about religious policing that mohammed tells, that mustafa tells at the beginning. He said so much of that already i will save the telling of the story at the beginning of the qanda period. Its recapitulating what he was doing and i would like to dive into the book something to see if he might like to comment on it. The question of human rights of course begins with a question of humanity and human nature. More than any other country we have the declaration of faith and god and allegiance to a particular faith or the rights that come from some other source that really have a necessary connection with our human nature. Let me quote now a passage. In the chapter titled how he lost universalism, i quote of ts a very muslim thinker in the theological volunteerism most sunni scholars denied the inmate word of humanity consequentially the stars rejected the efforts saying that its an islamic and that they couldnt participate in a universal moral order that could only aspire to build its own. That is why after the initial centuries and asserted a increasingly became insular and selfreferential and a quality from the first place. A lack of curiosity it impeded from this civilization. I had another passage that i would like to submit. Thank you for your kind words and again im honored to hear your thoughts about my work and to remember how we met with the pancake story these issues are different scholarly views. What i argue there is the civilization most muslims year and for that. We had more tolerance, more science and it went into the west and became take two words for it. For some people because we were great and god punished us. Because it had a worldview learning from other civilizations. It was an acceptable endeavor and promoted endeavor. It translated into the endeavors because the cultures were not that much interactive with each other so it created that openness because muslims at the time as it was put we have all the wisdom we have not just scientific but ethical. This is when i emphasized a lot by a theological outlook. As it is symbolized by the orthodoxies and criticizing the books no religion indicates so theres no wisdom beyond this law. Maybe take a few things like logic you can learn from outside and therefore you cannot contribute to the outside as well. There can be the rejection and the us versus them approach within theology, culture and politics as well. I grew up with this in turkey and for a decade they told us its because it comes from the infidel. Its an interesting story in itself that i will write hopefully one day but there is a still resistance and therefore sort of discussing whether or not an idea is good or bad some circles in the muslim world say that idea is coming from the believers precisely because there is no basis for it. I think they owed its greatness to its openmindedness and universalism. The decline of those ideas led to the decline in politics and ethical openness and other problems. If it is the only source of ethical value that you have, you have days without asking maybe we can reinterpret this if it had access to another ethical ground. The door that opens onto acceptance of wisdom from other sources certainly has something to do with acknowledging the common humanity and once that happens, the possibility grows not just accepting and believing that you can contribute to others that are not of your faith but something else. Im an admirer of another and its clear mohammed was well acquainted but then if it was a stronger influence than christians that were near the area there was one answer to that is they also accepted jesus as the messiah but did not accept him as god and so that may have led to that reason where mohammed became. Later in the book we hear of how in the intellectual muslim history it was powerfully influential upon those who acknowledged his indebtedness and also the scholastic philosophies at the new universities that came into existence where more often he was called the philosopher. In this way from the period the tradition was largely influential but then comes the tragedy where he did his greatest work. I would like you to comment on that and we can start taking questions from other audience. I would like to add one more thing to what i said about the closing of minds. This can happen in any civilization any time. Any tradition can stagnate the kind of movements that i see in the west today didnt have the same bed potential to call them on that side so its not that there are specific problems but there are human traits that sometimes lead to progress and development and toleration and human traits that sometimes go against them. This doesnt mean that the same problems are not found in other parts of the world today. They are and we should see them as a whole. I have a whole chapter on last man standing and show what if the last voices in islam that had the idea of the revelation being supported sources of wisdom he had a sense of natural law and how he looked into some issues about jihadi which could teach us something today. We will finish the panel and maybe we will have time for qanda as well. Sure. I would like to take some questions from the audience. One that came in for you is the call of separation of religion and state. Was that not already introduced a century ago by the secular states as your own country, turkey under the leadership . What happened there . Thats a very good question i should say. Indeed the muslim world has seen the secular states especially in turkey, my country but what im speaking is a little bit different. They were political experiments and introduced secularism. What he did was not to try to reconcile. He just brought them and said this is it and thats why that sometimes turned into liberal. When you do that, when you bring the system on top of a religious tradition what you have is that religion that turns back which is why that is happening in turkey and in a much harsher way in iran. What im trying to do is not to speak about the design but justify the idea of the secular state from within the islamic point of view that was argued but im not arguing for a french revolutionary who separated by crushing the catholic church. Im working in the tradition that i think is the only way to go forward otherwise we will see this and lesh that claim the public space and then just turning into a vicious cycle. Jason asks the following question. What do you expect the response would be from the u. S. Muslim community that has their own voices in the congress, the arab countries and their leaders and the Muslim Community living inside jerusalem . This is obviously a question for mustafa. Very specific definitions and a good question. Thank you very much. The book came out about a week ago but so far ive already received a lot of attention. The ones that already see the problem in their own countries theres a lot of people who are disturbed with all the bigotry they see in pakistan and they are not against religion but they are against the course and are typically very interested in my book. From malaysia im sure there are some and i have a chapter by the way criticizing some discussions that people call in moral piety and im sure try to show how they are probably the best integrated minority outside of the muslim majority countries. They are as i can see the religious freedom they find here and they appreciate the opportunities. Will they be interested in my books . So far and thats why i see a lot of interest since last week and interest in my articles about these books but there are two things i should say. I also see many focusing more on domestic issues they argue against nativism. Its very good that we defend equal justice under the law and Civil Liberties and human rights in the west when they are sometimes threatened by nativists or ill liberal secularists. Thats good. But if you are defending these principles we should also advocate them in saudi arabia and pakistan and iraq because of these two premises on there isnt a whole different level. I should say i sometimes see a troubling attitude in some clerics. As a Muslim Minority we appreciate freedom in america and justice under the law. They are not trying to bring shame in america. I should make that clear. That would be an unfair accusation but what they are saying is the standards at home are different. These are the standards of his long we are not going to try to bring these liberal standards back we will just use them here but we will justify the muslim supremacist them, they dont put it that way but thats what it is. They will not argue for equal rights. I challenge that view and say if they are realizing that its a good thing to have freedom for everybody, its a good thing to have equal rights under the law how can we deprive the minority of the muslim world from these things, how can we justify it in the name of islam and at the end of the day we will not ask why do you enjoy liberalism when it helps you, why do you oppress or deny it when it works the other way around so there are interesting discussions going on but im very hopeful about the potential of the understanding. Theres a lot more Academic Work about that im trying to sometimes highlight, but the discussion moves on. In jerusalem specifically. There the real issue today speaking of palestine, the problem is finding a political solution now that many are still stateless. It is a two state solution and the issues in the muslim world are not just militarism theres a lot of political and thats what i see regarding. Doctor miles. I had an interesting experience with a pakistani student of mine. She was born in this country as an american citizen. Her parents had a difference of opinion about where it was best for muslims to live who are serious about their faith. Her mother, husband and wife wanted her to retire. She thought saudi arabia was the true home and where you could practice islam properly. Her husband had more mixed feelings to remain in the United States and she took the position that she could practice islam more authentically here than either in pakistan or in saudi arabia. This reminds me of something you write about on page 84 of your book which is the islam entity index that is something maintained that ive learned from you by a group of american muslims. Judging all the countries of the world by how islamic they are. It talks a bit about that in this fascinating concept. Theres an interesting word a few American Scholars i quoted in the book and in the website one could check, the countries are ranked according, however they are not meaning an explicit declaration of islam or implementing in a little sense. They are focusing on the tradition and islam that we call the intentions. Thats an important vision and actually lets say in the 12th and 13th century there was work about it especially. They said theres a lot of injunctions but its protecting the five values of religion, life, lineage, property and intellect. In the 20th century they added freedom to this as well. Its not about of the liberalism but looking at what it was in this set of principles. The scholars that have written this, they are saying lets look at the world from this set of principles, which are best at protecting life, property, intellects and freedom. From this perspective they are new zealand, ireland, norway, denmark, other countries which are generally western europe and no Muslim Country makes it to the top 40 which is something i highlight in the book and i argue that we should understand this based on the intentions and look at the world like that we see it as a different picture like this. Now regarding the issue whether islam should be an alternative to the democracy there are people who understand it that way. They will say none of them are true. So where is it whatever you put in practice looks into tierney. There would be one state based on and we should look to the intentions. Thats why you can find it today those that are served in a western liberal democracy. I would like to take one more question from the audience. Its the same debate of christian scholars the reformation a counter enlightenment if you can expound on that please. That is a huge academic review going on in the past 150 years whether philosophy flourished and influenced the west. Did it decline or not they said yes it declined because of a theologian that condemned the philosophers as infidels but at the same time inc. Some of their thinking including the logic but actually naturalize it. They pointed out it allows the theology to continue within the tradition so theres some food to the second argument but i agree with the third view who say that the later theological tradition allow the philosophy to some extent but the fact they didnt allow it to be an independent discipline is what led to the stagnation. This also led to stagnation of the sciences as i show in my book. But a few centuries later you see people that condemned geography as one of the useful sciences of the philosophy. Was geometry useless . They figured it out soon because they realized they had better armies and began to bring experts to teach so i think there has been a stagnation although its more complicated and its sort of being defensive about it we should try to see the problem and go forward. Its important for any civilization to have multiple sources of wisdom religion, theology, ethical, philosophy, secular thought, critical atheist thought but interaction between them without any cancel culture is what makes the civilizations of society grow and prosper. Its a lesson we see from other parts of the world today. If it is possible, what youre saying is mostly it appears to sunni islam and its tradition and the rights of some of its leaders. What do you think about that and my book is mainly about a sunni tradition but i touched upon what happened as well. They were free from some of the theological doctrines that i criticized in the tradition so that has allowed for example philosophy to exist more visibly. The jurisprudence had been more flexible, so that could have allowed a path towards enlightenment however there are other problems and that is the unquestioned authority of the ayatollah. Thats why i said in my book while the sunnis gave all of the moral authority, the shiites gave it to the ayatollah to the great leader and that also prevented what could have been better. No wonder, not a surprise, that federation of the ayatollah was used too created the bureaucratic state as we see in iran. Its not the only. The shiite do not agree with that model but there is a potential. Thank you, i am afraid we have run out of time and i want to thank you both for joining us today. You have written a very important book and i look forward to seeing more about it in different parts of the world, i apologize to all the audience members who ask questions but we didnt have time to get through all of them. This program will be put up at the Cato Institute and archive forms, you can go back and see that and we look forward to seeing all of