This House believes in the separation of mosque and state

TIM SEBASTIAN
Ladies and gentlemen, a very good evening to you and welcome to the second in our series of Doha Debates. This is a unique venture for the region and we believe a vital exercise for a free and modern society. You hardly need me to tell you that debate, argument, enlightenment belong as much to the traditions of Islam as to other religions, and in some cases much more. We hope, as I said last time, to recreate a spirit of inquiry and to probe some of the most controversial and divisive issues of the day: human rights, reform, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the on-going crisis in Iraq. At our last debate, the House decided that Arab governments were not serious about genuine reform. It was a pointed and powerful message sent from this hall here in Qatar that our participants were profoundly unimpressed by the reform credentials of the governments in this region. In effect, they were telling them to 'shape up'. Well, tonight our motion is just as controversial, to some perhaps even more so, since it touches that most sensitive relationship between Islam and government, and goes to the heart of many divisions in the Muslim world. 'This House believes in the separation of Mosque and State,' or does it? We'll find out in just over an hour's time, when you've heard the arguments for and against the proposition, and get a chance to vote on it. Is Islam sometimes used as a cover by despotic governments? Or does it act as a check and balance, providing those governments with a powerful, moral compass in the dangerous and uncertain world? You will hear persuasive arguments both for and against those contentions. I would urge you to listen sceptically, critically, and take nothing at face value. All our speakers have a line to sell you, all are fishing for your vote. Question them closely, but make no mistake, how you ask those questions is vitally important. I often recall the way Mikhail Gorbachev was asked on one occasion to sum up the state of the Soviet economy in one word. He replied 'Good'. He was asked to do it in two. He replied, 'Not good.' So the question does matter, and I look forward very much to yours. As before, we have two speakers both for and against the motion. Speaking for, Tarek Heggy, an Egyptian author, who's written widely on democracy, tolerance and women's rights in the Middle East. A lawyer by training, he's been active in numerous organisations around the world, including the Faculty of Economic and Political Sciences at Cairo University, and the Rand Corporation. To second the motion, Dr. Abdelwahab El-Affendi. He is Senior Research Fellow at the Centre of the Study of Democracy at the University of Westminster in London. He's a former Sudanese diplomat and author of a number of books including Islam and the Modern State. Speaking against our proposition tonight, a man who needs very little introduction. He's the former Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, a giant statesman on the world stage and an often-uncomfortable interlocutor to Western leaders, including US presidents. Dr. Mahathir held office for 22 years and stepped down in October 2003. He told journalists he'd go out with a bang, if that's what they wanted. Also opposing the motion, Laith Shubeilat, former Islamist member of the Jordanian Parliament, where he ran a judicial committee investigating ministers and even Prime Ministers. He was himself arrested on charges of involvement in a coup d'état. He received the death sentence, then a term of 20 years' hard labour, followed two days later by a general amnesty, so you could say that fortune has smiled on him, at least until tonight. He left politics behind in 1993, but thankfully not his opinions. Ladies and gentlemen, these are our panelists tonight. Well, each of them has agreed to speak in turn for a maximum period of seven minutes, which will be rigidly enforced, so I now call on Tarek Heggy to propose the motion, 'This House believes in the separation of Mosque and State.'

TAREK HEGGY
I believe that while Islam theoretically doesn't have clergy, but in the Islamic history and today, Muslims have, contrary to this claim, a very large clergy, very powerful, intervening with their views on every single issue. Also, I cannot say Islam, because there is no one single body that's called Islam. One of the beauties of Islam that for many centuries there were many schools of thinking. We today talk about four main schools within the Sunna family, but they were much more than this. We had Abu-Hanifah school, the Al-Malqui school, the Shafei school, the Hanbali school, but there were also some schools within the Sunna that vanished over the time and didn't last long, like the school of At-tabari, the school of Laith in Egypt, and within the Shia there are many, many schools, and we can say that these schools vary from right, I would put Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya, they admire the text and they narrow the room of the mind and on the other side we have Al Mutazila and Ibn Rushd - Averos in English - who enlarge the role of the mind and meanwhile pays less attention to the text, and it's a very, very serious point because Abu Hanifah is someone who accepted 200 Hadith (traditions) while Ibn Hanbal in the Musnad accepted thousands. So when we say Islam, we talk about not the religion, the understanding of people to Islam, and here we have very rich phenomena. The Muslims witnessed great vivid variations during the first five centuries, but I would imagine that since the 12th century, it became slower and less dynamic, and I would put the two names of Al-Ghazali, the gazelle, and Ibn Rushd (Averos) as the point between five centuries of variations, debates, differences and stagnation that started quietly but spread over the Muslim world, and these two names represent the whole issue that we are talking about and many, many other issues. Al-Ghazali was saying that mind cannot take us to reality. Averos was saying mind can take us to reality, and the name of, the title of one of his books is very indicative, which is (inaudible). This means anything that we say, God has said it, it has to also be rational and meets the requirements of the mind. The Koran, in my view, is a great source of macro values but it is not a code for detailed systems, and this is a strength and not a weakness, because the idea is not to be for a century or a couple of centuries, but to be for a much wider span of time, and that's why I believe that if the Koran doesn't tell us how many times a day we pray in the Koran, we should not expect the Koran to give us a legal system, a complete, detailed legal system, fiscal system, constitutional system, academic system, but the Koran would give us a set of values, macro values based on which we can work out some systems, but if the Koran doesn't tell us that Muslims pray five times a day, and this is based on the Hadith (Tradition), we should not expect the Koran to tell us everything about political, economical and other spheres of our life. Many contemporary Muslims do not realise that what we call it in Arabic Fiqh (jurisprudence) is 100% man-made, 100%. It is not 99% man-made, it is 100% man-made. Abu-Hanifah, the first of the great men of the Muslim jurisprudence, is the one who said, I'll say it in Arabic and translate it into English, he said about the entire world of jurisprudence, he said, (inaudible) 'All what we are saying is to be classified as opinions, and if anybody comes along with a better opinion, we will accept what he comes along with.' So Fiqh (jurisprudence) is totally a man-made thing, changes and should be challenged, and our tool to challenge is the critical mind. The contemporary Muslims tend to believe that the saying, 'Islam is a religion and state, and Islam (inaudible)is a very old saying, which is totally incorrect. This was coined only 80 years ago. A friend of mine worked on his thesis only on proving this, that this was coined by Al-Sanhuri in Egypt in 1925 to justify for the King of Egypt at that time, King Fouad, that he could inherit the collapsed Ottoman Empire and to be the Caliph for the Muslims but this is a new term and nobody would ever be able to prove that the Muslims ever used the word or the expression (inaudible) before 1925, and this is the year in which Ali Abdurazzaq published his book against this notion. When we talk about separation between mosque and state, we have to remember that all of us in the Arab world are tribal societies and there is nothing wrong with that, and the tribe was a source of great values, but to allow modern states to inherit the framework of the tribe is impossible. In the tribe, the Sheikh of the tribe is the reference nearly for everything, and in the modern political systems, we should not let our mind, which is very much influenced by the tribal framework, to continue to tell us we cannot segregate the mosque from the politics because deep inside us, this was not done, it was not do-able. The head of the tribe was the reference for everything, but I believe that many, many modern Muslims would immediately reject the idea of a separation between mosque and state because of this tribal formation of our minds.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Thank you very much. Tarek Heggy, what is wrong with the mosque keeping an eye on the state when we have so many corrupt politicians around the world?
TAREK HEGGY
The history tells us that the clergy, I wouldn't say the mosque (inaudible) throughout the history, was allying with the corrupt authority more than allying with people.
TIM SEBASTIAN
That's a very sweeping statement. What about now?
TAREK HEGGY
Until this moment of time, let me tell you... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
Yes, but give me some examples where that's the case now.
TAREK HEGGY
Absolutely, I'll give you some examples. When we had Nasser in Egypt, when I was at the university, Al-Azhar used to say, 'Islam equals the socialism of Nasser,' and when Sadat went to Jerusalem, Ah-Azhar said to us (inaudible), which is a verse of the Koran, so they were saying that Islam means go and negotiate with Israel.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But you're basically saying the clergy today are as corrupt as the politicians?
TAREK HEGGY
Absolutely, that's what I wanted to say.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So give me an example of where that's the case now.
TAREK HEGGY
In every single Muslim country, there is no hardship, there is no difficulty, there is no confrontation between the formal religious institution and the state, there is not one, I'm not aware of any. They were behind Saddam Hussein and they were behind Nasser in Egypt and they were behind Sadat in Egypt, and in my country in 1936, they wanted the King not to give the oath at the Parliament but in the Azhar, and not to put his hand on the constitution but on the Koran. They were always part of the power, and they have been. I'm talking about the formal ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
So you can't think of any exceptions to that, you're basically accusing the clergy of the same dishonesty as the politicians. That's a very broad accusation. That's one that I'm sure our audience will want to pick you up on later.
TAREK HEGGY
I'm not putting it in the very generalised way you are putting it. I'm saying, in general you have the same defect. If you have a political authority which is corrupt, you will have a formal religious institution which is similarly corrupt, but you can't say every single one, because this would be too non-scientific.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right.Tarek Heggy, I'm sure that's a point that everybody will want to pick up a bit later. Can I call on Dr. Mahathir please to oppose the motion.

DR. MAHATHIR
Thank you very much. Well, I do not agree that there should be a separation between the mosque and the state. That is simply because Islam is not just a faith or religion. It is also a way of life, and a way of life must govern everything that happens to us in life, including of course the government of a state. You cannot govern a state and say that, 'Well, this has nothing to do with religion.' It has something to do with religion, because if you don't adhere to the principles of the religion, then you are going to do things which are contrary to religion, and probably will be very damaging to human society. For example, religion enjoins upon us to uphold justice. We have seen dictatorships which refuse to uphold justice, and they are really not following the teachings of the religion, and in Islam, we cannot separate the spiritual from the secular. There is no such thing in Islam. Secular, secularity is something that is conceived in another religion, in the Christian religion perhaps. It may be relevant, but not in the Muslim religion, because everything is governed by the teachings of Islam. Of course it is not detail as to come up with the laws perfectly relevant to whatever crimes that may be committed in these modern times, but the principles are there, so that when you judge, you must judge with justice. If it's not just, then it is not in accordance with the teachings of the religion, and so when we talk about the mosque of course, we are not talking about the mosque per se. We are talking about religion, not the institution of the mosque, nor the people who run the mosque, the people who are learned in religion. They are learned in religion and they are useful for government in the sense that they can give the principles that govern any action of the government, but they are not going to run the government. They are not to be running the country, because in Islam it says very clearly that if you give a job to someone who is not an expert in it, you are going to have disaster, and people who are religious are not necessarily experts in government. For example, they are not experts in medicine. You wouldn't ask a person who is very knowledgeable about religion to operate on you, because if you do that, you are going to meet with disaster. So there is a clear separation in terms of the work that has to be done, but if you want to do something that is, well, related to medicine, for example, you have to have the opinion of the people who are conversant with religion. At one time there was some worry whether we should allow blood transfusion, for example, but these people have, they discussed this thing and they came up with an answer, and we are allowed to do that. Now we have problems like cloning. Is it right for us to clone another human being? Technically is it possible, scientifically it is possible, but is it right? And if religion says it is right, well, we'll go ahead, but if religion says it is wrong, there must be a reason for it because it will bring about disaster or be very damaging to human society. So doctors must abide by the opinions or the views of the people conversant with religion, but on the other hand, the people who are conversant with religion should not try cloning on their own because they have no expertise in this area. So there is always a religious input in whatever it is that you do, and certainly in the running of a country, you need to have religious guidance. Islam says quite clearly that everything that you do must be governed by the principles of religion. By upholding justice, you are adhering to the teachings of the religion and not saying that, 'Well, I don't care what the religion says. This is what I'm going to do.' If you do that, then of course there will be chaos in human society.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Dr. Mahathir, thank you very much indeed. As you seriously telling us that you needed, as Prime Minister of Malaysia, you needed religion, you needed Islam to tell you to uphold justice?
DR. MAHATHIR
Well, some people obviously ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
It wasn't second nature to you?
DR. MAHATHIR
Not really. Sometimes we find it difficult to uphold justice because we are probably motivated by selfishness, by other things, but Islam ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
You have strong laws and a strong legal code, your duty is to uphold it, isn't it? It has nothing to do with religion, has it?
DR. MAHATHIR
Well, sometimes people manipulate things, you know.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But you were in the top job. You can do it your way.
DR. MAHATHIR
No. If you go to the courts you will find that there are lawyers who can speak quite strongly on one side and there are lawyers who can speak quite strongly on the other side, so there are two sides to the coin, and if you don't stress justice, then you may be carried away by the arguments of the lawyers.
TIM SEBASTIAN
You say the clergy should not come to power or clerical parties should not come to power. Where do you draw the line? I want to read you something which was said by the spiritual leader of the PAS party in your country. He said, 'Those who rally behind Islam are also those who want to live under divine laws laid down by Allah and naturally they will go to heaven for choosing an Islamic party, while those who support un-Islamic parties will logically go to hell.'
DR. MAHATHIR
That's precisely the problem. These people believe that because they know about religion, therefore they know about how to run a country. They don't.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But you're opening the door to those people, you opened the door to those people.
DR. MAHATHIR
No, because in a system where, a democratic system, we cannot shut people's mouths. They want to say something, they can say it but it's up to the people to judge whether what they say is right or wrong, I mean.
TIM SEBASTIAN
And you would have been happy if that party had come to power on that platform?
DR. MAHATHIR
No, we are against that party because it's issuing tickets to heaven, you know, 'You vote for me, you go to heaven.' Nobody can verify that because the people who went there never came back.
TIM SEBASTIAN
And those that live these days in Iran, for instance, or Saudi Arabia, too much influence of the clergy on society?
DR. MAHATHIR
Yes, in some ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
You wouldn't want to live in a country like that?
DR. MAHATHIR
In some instances, people, the problem with religion, of course, is that ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
Can I ask you, you wouldn't want to live in countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia?
DR. MAHATHIR
Well, I prefer to live in the place where I come from. I have to be diplomatic.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Why? You're no longer in office. We're among friends here.
DR. MAHATHIR
Today nothing is secret. Everything gets heard outside the room, not just inside the room.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Dr. Mahathir, thank you very much.Let me now call on Dr. Abdelwahab El-Affendi to support the motion please.

DR. EL-AFFENDI
I think we have to do some concept clarification at the beginning. As Dr. Mahathir rightly said, the term used in this debate to refer to religion in a sense of official hierarchy of the clergy. There are some problems with this because I think we have probably taken too much from the term 'church' in the English language and the Christian theology, the church has two meanings. One meaning is the institution, the place. Actually, three meanings. One is the place where you worship, and this is where the mosque, it's synonymous with the mosque. The other is the hierarchy of the clergy, another term, but there was an original term, the word church, which means the Christian community as a whole, so in this sense, no-one can say the Christian community as a whole should have nothing to do with the state, and we are not saying that. We are not saying that the Muslim Umma (Nation) should have nothing to do with the state. Quite the contrary, we're saying that the Umma (Nation) should have everything to do with the state and how it's run, but was this clarified? The problem comes into why, when you say that religion should have something to do with the state, who is then the spokesperson, what religion is in this regard? Is religion a certain hierarchy, a certain person? Now, this is not a theoretical question because in a couple of countries like Iran, for example, this issue has been debated, and before that actually there were ideas in the Iranian constitution and their revolution and the constitution, revolution of Iran in 1906, where the idea was that in order to have an Islamic constitution or to ensure that the state complies with the religious values, the idea was to get a constitutional commission of five people who are in the parliament and who decide, these five people decide whether a certain legislation is religious or not. Now, in modern Iran, this has been translated into (inaudible) (the authority of the jurist) where you've got one person who is deemed to be so knowledgeable and so upright that his word and God's word are the same. Now, of course, there is a problem from the Islamic point of view, that any man who claims this right is actually committing the cardinal crime of (inaudible)  and this has been mentioned in the Koran, about religious communities where they say they have used their priests as God's, beside God, and the prophet's interpretation of this was that, because they used them as ultimate authority to give them religious values, so for a Muslim, for a believer, he doesn't, taking values from a person as tantamount as the word of God, even if this person is a priest or claims to be a priest, he is committing the act of polytheism which is the most unforgivable sin in Islam. Now, even if this is not enough in practice, this practice has led to a problem in Iran itself, and other places like Sudan, for example, where I come from, and where we have an experiment like this and for which I was rather enthusiastic, but the same problem happened, that first of all the person or the person or the movement who claims to embody these values does not actually embody the values, and creates more problems than they solve, but in the other, which is even more interesting, and Ayatullah Al-Khumaini was the first one to modify the authority of the jurist, to the so-called absolute authority of the jurist, and he said in this that the jurist has not only, his word not only authority on what is Islam or not, but he can contradict this language directly, if the state interest dictates this, because his main responsibility is to safeguard the state interest. Now, for this purpose, the Iranian constitution now has been modified to include another body which is called the body for the, determining the interest of the regime, and this body can over-rule everything including Islamic law in the interest of the state. Now, this is what we are saying that should not happen, that anybody who comes to say that, 'I want to be a politician,' he cannot at the same time claim to say, 'I am a religious authority.' If you want to be a politician, you are welcome to become a politician, you go to the people, if the people vote for you, vote for your policies, whatever policies you approve, you propose and they vote for, you are welcome to implement this policy, but don't tell us that you are the voice of religion. The voice of religion could be voiced in politics and everywhere else, but should not be embodied actually in, could not, not only should not, it could not be embodied in a movement, in a person, in a party or in a state. So, and the threat of this is that if somebody claims this, he would use his position, his office in order to intimidate people or to use things which are, to pass policies which are not acceptable for the people, so we are, what we are saying here, what we are trying to say is that, yes, we do not want religious values, yes, the Muslim Umma (Nation) should run its affairs in the way it sees fit, should elect its rulers, should ask them to implement Islamic values in the same way but their ultimate authority and reference in this is the people, as far as we are concerned.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So be a politician but don't claim to be the voice of religion.
DR. EL-AFFENDI
That's good.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So how do you draw that line, in the constitution, how do you draw it?
DR. EL-AFFENDI
Well, I think it's not a constitutional thing but it's a political thing, that the people should not accept ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
But if you're saying this shouldn't happen, there's got to be a mechanism for stopping it happening, hasn't there?
DR. EL-AFFENDI
I think the mechanism which I'm suggesting is that the people themselves are the mechanism, that the people should not accept any argument of someone who says, 'I am the voice of religion.'
TIM SEBASTIAN
Supposing they do? Supposing they vote for a party that brings that kind of platform to power?
DR. EL-AFFENDI
Well, to be fair, they normally don't but if they do, then there's nothing much we can do about that.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Like Iran, for instance, is this where it's gone too far?
DR. EL-AFFENDI
I don't think Iran has voted that. Iran has voted recently for President Khatami who actually is saying what we are saying, at the moment.
TIM SEBASTIAN
He may be saying it but he's not doing it, is he?
DR. EL-AFFENDI
Well, that's a problem.
TIM SEBASTIAN
He doesn't have the power to do it, does he?
DR. EL-AFFENDI
Yes, because he doesn't have the military, the power which he is against is not a religious power, it's the intelligence and the army and the revolutionary guard which are not angels or divinely ordained bodies, but they are thugs.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But do you want the people to make a decision, a responsible decision, to say to Islamic parties, for instance, 'So far but no further.' You want to have some kind of discrimination, bring in your own kind of discrimination.
DR. EL-AFFENDI
No, I am not bringing any discrimination. I am saying this. The Islamic parties themselves should also be the first to say this, to say that, 'We are political parties. We have a certain agenda. We want, like for example, Khatami, like the justice party in Turkey, who we have a political agenda to implement. This agenda could include some religious values.'
TIM SEBASTIAN
So as long as they're moderate parties, it's OK. This is what you're saying.
DR. EL-AFFENDI
As long as the people are the judges in this, I am fine with that.
TIM SEBASTIAN
And if they bring extremist parties to power, that's their decision.
DR. EL-AFFENDI
Well, I don't think the Muslim Umma (Nation) has ever brought extremist parties to power.
TIM SEBASTIAN
For the moment, let me ask Laith Shubeilat to speak against the motion, please.

LAITH SHUBEILAT
The argued statement is an out-of-context repetition of the similar one regarding church and state. It is not applicable here for two reasons. Firstly, whereas church is a centrally dominated, rigid establishment, the mosque is not, and there are no clergy in Islam, rather scholars who gain and lose the direct trust of people by their track record of knowledge-seeking, coupled with their personal integrity and courage. Secondly, Islam, unlike Christianity with whom it shares an identical overall outlook towards the oneness of God, universe, man and life, as well as sharing with it the noblest values of kindness, benevolence, and notions of good and evil, goes further than Christianity in defining more rules and regulations for socio-economic matters. For example, at one time all three monotheistic religions considered usury to be the root of social evil and injustice. To the degree that Jesus, may peace be upon him, was never angrier than when he kicked the usurers out of the Temple, yet the absence of more detailed regulations in Jesus's message allowed the antidote forces to conduct a complete coup within Christianity to the degree that the so-called champions of Christendom moved the Temple out of the holiness of the Vatican to the citadel of money in Wall Street via a historical journey passing through world financial capitals of Calvinist Zurich and Anglican London. Had it not been for sharia, the Muslim world's culture and conscience today would have embraced dogmatically what its people still strongly resent and still refuse - the usurious banking system and financial casino of floating rates of exchange imposed on their societies by the prevailing world order, and local leaders at the service of the new Temple. Since the duty of the state is to achieve the welfare of its citizens, I shall argue in what is left for me that the state cannot escape the indispensable need for the guidance of the enlightened mosque, to achieve its duties of protecting the welfare of the citizens. A mosque that sinks deeper than forms of worship, to mime the intellectual wealth of socio-economic principles that are inseparable from the religious message, as Dr. Mahathir said. I'm going to run through some of the principles that are inseparable from Islam's mosque. The social importance of monotheism is that is establishes by default unequivocally human equality, for when one believes in the oneness of the Lord, he accepts by default that God is everybody's God on earth, regardless of race, colour, creed or religious belief. That is a must for the establishment of non-aggressive state. From this emanates, again by default, the outlawing of injustice, and since it is unjust to loot and confiscate others' wealth and lives, usury, a worldly matter, by default becomes an enemy of humanism and social well-being, and hence the enemy of the mosque. This leads to the only acceptable lawful principle for the acquisition of wealth, the equal, fair partnership between human toil and money, where wealth is respected and protected from the confiscation of radical socialism, and humans from the enslavement of radical capitalism. Furthermore, where necessary, development is protected from the negative effects of stagnant wealth by the social religious act of worship, Al Zakat, a capital tax imposed by the mosque. It is the mosque that safeguards people from the hijacking of the state by anti-social forces enslaving them. In monotheistic religions of which Islam is a leader in worldly affairs, man is not just another animal in social Darwinism that allows the fittest to eliminate the weakest. He is rather the viceroy of God, the special creature endowed with the gift of intellect. He, and not nature as in the prevailing anti-Christ paradigm of the world order, is the centre of the universe. That is why poverty, for example, is on the top of the polluters' list in our environmentalist agenda, emotion completely rejected by the prevailing anti-Christ, anti-humanist policies. In fact that was the major clash between poor nations led by the vision of Malaysia's Dr. Mahathir Mohammad, and the developed sector in Rio's Earth Summit in 1992. It was the guidance of the mosque that inspired him to be the pallbearer of the deprived nations of different creeds subjected to looting in this as well as in other issues like those imposed by the IMF. This is the role of the mosque we so much need for the achievement of our right to true democratic rule, where worshippers and non-worshippers, Muslims as well as non-Muslims achieve their equal rights as citizens of a state bound and guarded by the constitutional principles inseparable from the enlightened mosque. This is the socio-political meaning of, 'There is no God but God, no leader is God and no state is God.' Thank you.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Thank you very much. Who says what is an enlightened mosque and what isn't? Which ones? How do you identify enlightened ones from non-enlightened ones?
LAITH SHUBEILAT
Enlightened scholars ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
In whose view?
LAITH SHUBEILAT
Well, it is freedom, it is freedom that gives, that opens the way to the ideas, the new ideas, to the correct ideas to surface, not the mosque being politicised but the same statesman who says no to the politics of a mosque, they themselves politicise the mosque by dominating the clergy they control, and they order them from time to time to hail them, praise them, say what is right. In that I disagree with Tarek when he mentioned, for example, that all clergy at Al Azhar was dominant at the time of Abdel Nasser, it's the first time it was dominated by, appointed by the state.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But you haven't told me, come back to the question, who tells the difference between an enlightened and a non-enlightened mosque? You say you want to put your faith, it's indispensable to have the guidance of an enlightened mosque.
LAITH SHUBEILAT
The enlightened mosque is a mosque that cares for the life of people, for their welfare and does not only care, and does not only limit itself to worship and how to dress and how to ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
So there are some that do and some that don't.
LAITH SHUBEILAT
Those who do, anyway, those who do falter away because people need ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
And what about those who don't?
LAITH SHUBEILAT
... people need the leadership of those who bring them bread and butter, those who cater for their services, their lives. Now, people cannot live with clergy or a mosque that keeps on blabbing all the time about the hereafter, the hereafter, the hereafter. Fine, the hereafter, we know about it, but today, how are we going to get our bread and butter?
TIM SEBASTIAN
The problem is that for the people, there is no central authority in Islam, is there? There's nobody they can turn to and say, 'This is the authority.'
LAITH SHUBEILAT
On the contrary.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Who's the authority?
TAREK HEGGY
No, no, this is democracy, this is the democratic way. This is the democratic way. We don't impose a scholar. A scholar builds his reputation and gains democratically, gains the trust of the people by his knowledge-seeking and by courageous stands that he takes in the face of the leader. In history, you asked my colleague, in history, I'll give you two examples where a scholar stood in front of a Caliph, and when the Caliph wanted to expel the Christians on Mount Lebanon, it was an Imam, Al Imam Al Uzai who is buried in Beirut, who told to the Caliph, 'You can't do this, your legality is at stake if you do this. You cannot do this to the Christians of Lebanon.' Again, when the Sultan in Constantinople wanted to transfer the Cypriots, it was the Mufti who told him, 'If you do this, I will announce that you are no more the Caliph of this Sultanate.'
TIM SEBASTIAN
Tarek Heggy, let me throw it open to the panel.
TAREK HEGGY
In the Koran, there is a value system, that we will be harmony with, and this is what I believe Mr. Mahathir said, we will be harmony with, but we are before a leader of a successful experiment, who was a physician at the beginning of his life and he ruled his case as skilful manager, and I heard both of them saying that we will not use clergy to run the society. People will be politicians accountable in accordance to the constitution, a constitution that we put on side. We say that these are the terms of reference we have to abide by, and I believe that it sounds as if they are saying something different than ours. They are saying what we are saying, Islam is source of values and ( inaudible)(Clergy) should not govern the society, and this is what they are saying.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Let me bring Dr. Mahathir in.
DR. MAHATHIR
I would say that they agree with all views, that there cannot be ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
There speaks the Prime Minister.
DR. MAHATHIR
There cannot be a separation between the mosque, figuratively speaking, the mosque and the state, but let me give an example of where the separation has taken place between church and state. Today you find that Western, these so-called secular governments, no longer care for what religion says, so there is now evidence of a collapse of moral values.
TIM SEBASTIAN
George W. Bush would take issue with you on that.
DR. MAHATHIR
I don't mind debating with him, if you are going to be in the chair, because he tries, by his perception of what is the Christian religion, he's not necessarily correct.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But 80% of his support came from people who go to church more than once a week.
DR MAHATIR
They were taken for a ride, you see, but the thing is that you agree that there must be religious input in the government. When there is no religious input in the government, then you have a collapse of moral values. For example, I mean, religion forbids homosexuality, I mean, marriage between a man and a man, but because this is the popular demand, a government that does not follow religious teaching is willing to legislate the marriage, that it is legal for a man to marry a man, a woman to marry a woman. It is completely against the teachings of the religion. That is what happens when there is a separation between church and state, and if we have a separation between Islam and the state, between the mosque and the state, this thing can happen.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Tarek Heggy, do you agree with that?
TAREK HEGGY
I believe that they agreed to what we said. I mentioned the term 'set of values' and they agreed to it and I thank them very much for that.
TIM SEBASTIAN
You agree that it's up to religion to use ... (overlap)
TAREK HEGGY
I didn't hear from the other side, I didn't hear anything except what Laith said, that he talked about good and bad mosque, and I think this is very easy to demolish, because you need a constitution to tell you what is a good mosque and what is a bad mosque, and we will not be leaving this to the guts of everybody here. I check my guts and they tell me that this is a good mosque, and then I check my guts, and my guts tell me this is a bad one. We need a criteria, a benchmark which is objective and not subjective, and this will take us to a constitution. We don't have any other mean of defining good or bad mosques.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So a constitution that keeps religion out of politics structurally.
TAREK HEGGY
Keeps the class of clergy and even the values that we talked about, they will be not left to people to define. They will be defined in the constitution, because you can't, as I said, there are many, many interpretations of Islam. If we leave it undefined, it will be very loose, so I believe that the system that Mr. Shubeilat said, it is very subjective and I think you are asking him ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
No, it wouldn't work, it wouldn't work, his idea wouldn't work.
TAREK HEGGY
I have full respect to him but I think it is very utopian.
TIM SEBASTIAN
You want to come back on that?
LAITH SHUBEILAT
Where did Mr. Heggy understand that I'm not for a constitution?
TAREK HEGGY
I didn't say that.
LAITH SHUBEILAT
You are putting constitution against what I'm saying. We all need a constitution, by all means, we cannot live without a constitution. I'm a staunch defender of the constitution and I went to prison defending the constitution. We need a constitution but the constitution is guided by religious values, not by votes, not by voting of people as they want, to vote for ... (overlap)
TAREK HEGGY
By religious values or by religious men?
LAITH SHUBEILAT
No, no, there are no religious men. Excuse me, look, I'm considered to be a religious politician. I never mounted the pulpit of a mosque. I never accepted to make a sermon in a mosque, and I never made a motion in parliament that touches on religion in any sense, yet everybody knows that I'm defending the people, their interests, guided by the mosque. My collaborators who are mostly Christian and Leftists and others see this, understand this and know exactly what I'm doing. Now, what you want to say is that you don't want somebody to come and use politics to force religion, force acts of religion on people. Fine, we accept that, this is acceptable, and when you say that all clergy are bad, I mean, I think this is ... (overlap)
TAREK HEGGY
I didn't say all.
LAITH SHUBEILAT
Most, OK, the clergy, you yourself said that we have a tremendous wealth, man-made jurisprudence (inaudible). You praised Abu-Hanifah and the others. OK, those are the people, those are the great clergy, encyclopaedic scholars who gave us this jurisprudence (inaudible). Now, what I'm saying is we want to constitutionalise this jurisprudence (inaudible) into our lives and now whether a clergy, now a clergy, you can't say no clergy. We say it is not a prerequisite that a clergyman jumps to power. Anybody, anybody who is ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
OK, let him come back on that. Now I want to come to Dr. Mahathir.
TAREK HEGGY
I don't want to codify what they said. Codify what they said is degrading to me. Codifying and institutionalising, I mean, they said what they said and I respect it, and we will say what is suitable for our time, and if it is in harmony with the values of Koran, but I don't want to codify them. They are as, as Abu-Hanifah has said (inaudible), this is what Abu-Hanifah has said, and I ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
Could you translate?
TAREK HEGGY
It means if our ancestors, yeah, if our ancestors were men, we are also men, yeah, we have the guts and brains to, I don't want to codify anything from the past.
TIM SEBASTIAN
OK. Let me bring Dr. Mahathir in, and then we'll have Abdelwahab El-Affendi.
DR. MAHATHIR
Well, what I want to say is that there is some kind of belief that if religion is not invoked, the government is not invoked with a religion, then it will be a good government, a government that will uphold justice, fairness, etc.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Well, secular governments aren't bad per se, are they?
DR. MAHATHIR
But they banned the wearing of scarves because it is a religion symbol. What's wrong with it? I mean, if people want to wear a headscarf, that is their right. Why do you want to stop it? Or you say, 'Well, since I'm secular, you cannot become religious,' but you see, you uphold liberty, freedom, etc. ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
Secular governments are more than just the wearing of head-scarves, that's one small issue.
DR. MAHATHIR
Well, there are lots of other things. They don't like, they will not finance religious education. In America I believe you cannot have any, anything that indicates religion in their schools, because they are a secular state.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Dr. El-Affendi, then I'm going to throw it open to the audience.
DR. EL-AFFENDI
Well, I think I was curious when I was listening to Laith. You asked him to show a religious leader who is standing against corruption or against the state, and he was looking to people who were seven centuries or eight centuries before. He couldn't find someone from our time. That's quite interesting, although there are a few but I think the fact that he couldn't remember even a single person is quite interesting, but I think we want to get back to the core of the issue. Laith again has said he discussed a few things, items, where he thought religious values and the mosque, so-called authority of religion, would come into place and would be appropriate, and he mainly used the issue of (inaudible) or usury or interest. Now, we know that in Islam, this is one of the very interesting things, and in Islam there is no legal sanctions against (inaudible) or interest, yes, like eating pork, it is a sin, a grave sin, but there is no punishment for it, the state can do nothing if people decide to engage into it. That the Muslims today respect these prohibitions is actually in spite of what the states are doing. The state today is trying to impose (inaudible) interest on people, but the people themselves are upholding religion. Now, we are saying, what we are saying here is that there is a clear distinction which should be held between what is being religious, even the same person, even the Prophet (Peace be upon him), some people, they used to ask them, 'Is this a religious point of view or this your own point of view? In matters of state he would say for example, 'This is my own opinion,' and then if it's his own opinion, people will contradict him, so we want politicians, anybody who is a politician, we think that he's telling us his own opinion. This is an assumption we should accept, and he is not telling us about religion, he is not.

TIM SEBASTIAN
All right,OK. I'm going to throw the issue open now to the audience, and I warn you in advance, I'm going to be biased in favour of the student population, because I want them to have a good number of questions, so will you please put up your hand and we'll come to you. The gentleman at the back.
AUDIENCE Q (MALE STUDENT)
To Mr. Tarek Heggy. How can you quote the prophet and Omar Bin AL Khattab to support your ideas about separation, when we are aware that both of them were Caliphs and rulers of religious states, and as well Abu-Hanifah actually supported religious ruling of the state, not secular.
TAREK HEGGY
I think this is history, this is not religion here. If it was religious, the four Caliphs came to power on four different methods. One, the hint of the Prophet (Peace be upon him), so the prophet hinted, he didn't appoint. Abu-Bakr appointed Omer. Omer, when he was knifed, he formed a committee of six and added his son, and asked them to select one of that but it should not be his son. And we know what happened after Osman was killed, so you assume that the Caliph means that this is divine or holy, this is a position that reflects cultural givens, the situation as it was prevailing but if it was a religiously driven system, the four of them would have come to power in a accordance to the same methodology. Four of them came to power in accordance to four different methodologies, so there was no system. This was the system of the time, because everyone came to power on different grounds. So these are just rulers who were not representing God, and we are now in a much worse situation, and I need to say one thing only. Today in all the Muslim societies, when you go to one of the Imams or the Sheikhs or the Muftis, we ask him in Arabic (inaudible) we tell him what is the opinion of the religion, as if his name is (inaudible), the religion. We should ask him, 'What is your view, because you are not the religion, you are a person, but we ask in Arabic, we say (inaudible), and we are addressing a human being.
TIM SEBASTIAN
OK, I'm glad you brought it back to the present day. I hope we can concentrate more on the present day than on history, because there was a gentleman who got up at the back before.
AUDIENCE Q (MALE STUDENT)
I direct this question to Mr. Heggy. To begin with, I need to first clarify a point. The question of using Islam as a means of political achievement should not be used as an excuse for the application of secularism, as all political systems and religions have been used in the past to achieve political ambitions. Now the fundamental question I pose for the understanding of the consequences of secularism, I use the human body as an example to illustrate the question. Can we separate the human soul and expect the body to function normally? For instance, take the products of society in secular states which hold future threats to humanity, for example genetic engineering, human cloning, the human genome project, can humanity ... (overlap)
TAREK HEGGY
I understand.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Could you keep it brief, please.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
... can humanity live with the absence of the soul. Thank you.
TAREK HEGGY
No, I totally agree with you. We cannot separate the soul from the body. I'm trying to separate and get rid of (inaudible), the clergy, not of the soul. The soul, I said we will have to be in harmony with the values that are set clearly by the religion itself. I am not against that the soul should be there, on the contrary, it has to be there but the clergy are not the representatives of the soul, and that's why they followed the rulers in many, many cases, Laith might say not always and he referred to Al Uzai and Al Uzai was not eight centuries ago, it was more than a thousand years ago, so we haven't seen anything like this for ten centuries.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, thank you. Question, gentleman up there.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Question for Dr. Mahathir. Given the diversity of religions and principles arising from them, as well as the right of every man to a free choice, how should the state and the principles under which a state operate accommodate its functionality and the way it works to meet these different choices and needs?
DR. MAHATHIR
Malaysia became independent and adopted British common law. Now, British common law of course is not based on the Islamic religion, so we had to study again the implications of British common law so to find conformity with the teachings of Islam. So it is entirely possible for us to change human laws, but we cannot change God's laws, so we can only change human laws to conform with God's laws, but not change God's laws to conform with human laws. That is why we see a lot of confusion today. A lot of people feel that we know so much already, we have no need for religion. If we feel like doing something, why are you stopping us from doing it? If the majority wants to do something, we should allow it, because this is the popular demand, but when you go and cater for popular demand, you're likely to go wrong unless you go back to the teachings of the religion, which has laid certain principles, certain constraints on what we can do and what we cannot do. That is why religion plays a very important part in keeping the stability of our community. If you veer far away from religion, then you are really going to adopt systems and values which may be popular but will be very damaging to a lot of us. For example if I give this example of people who like to streak, you know, in public, they take off their clothing and streak. That's something they want to do, but religion says that it is wrong but secularists would say, 'Well, why not? That's what he feels like doing. That is his right, let him do it.' But once you allow such things to be done by one person, the others say, 'Well, if he can do it, why can't we?' and very soon we have the kind of situation that you see today where before you don't bring your same-sex friend along, today everybody does it, even priests bring their same-sex partners to religious ceremonies. That is when you follow human laws and neglect entirely the religious injunctions against certain things.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim, it's good to see you back.
AUDIENCE Q - DR. SAAD EDDIN IBRAHIM
My two questions. One is to Dr. Mahathir. Let us be practical and get down to the ground. You held power for so many years. Tell us, how many of your decisions, how many of your major policies you were guided by religious clergy in your country, and if you have, what did you do about life in a pluralistic society, you have two other religious communities besides the Muslims. What did you do? Did you consult religious authorities of the Buddhist and the Hindus in Malaysia? How come you were so successful despite your religious conviction and despite your abiding with the English common law and living in a pluralistic society?
DR. MAHATHIR
Well, it is not always necessary for you to consult a person who has religious knowledge. There are lots of things about religion which we know is right or wrong. To be unjust would be wrong, would be committing a sin, and because we are doing something that is against religion, we are constrained by this fear that what we are doing would be sinful. We want to avoid sin, but at the same time, of course, we may conform to the public's perception of what is right and wrong, so to do what is right is not to commit a sin. At the same time, when you do something that is right, of course that is acknowledged even by human society, whether they be of your own religion or not. Now, we are told in Islam that you may not use force, you may not force the conversion of people who are not Muslims. You must be just to them, you must be fair to them. That is what we did - that is what we do in Malaysia. The fact that he is a Hindu or a Buddhist does not matter. We must show that as a Muslim nation, a Muslim government, we have to be fair to everyone. There is nothing in Islam which says, 'You have only to be fair to Muslims, but you can be unfair to non-Muslims.' There is nothing said about that, so we have to be fair to the Hindus, to the Buddhists and to the Christians, and that has resulted, as promised, in stability, in a peaceful country. But if we were to be oppressive because they are not Muslims, then the result will probably be chaos in our country, so when ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
The question was, how many decisions were actually guided by religion?
DR. MAHATHIR
Well, practically all decisions will have some religious input. If we think that what we're doing is sinful, is something that is proscribed by religion, we just don't do it. But of course some people may say that no, this is not in accordance with religion, but that is their interpretation. We take the basic teachings of Islam because today we have too many interpretations of Islam, we don't know which one is right, we are confused, but if we go back to the fundamentals of Islam, things become very easy. For example we are taught that we should not fight people who do not fight against us. We are also taught that if somebody sues for peace, then we must respond. These are simple teachings which nobody can interpret in any other way.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So you're telling us you were basically driven by all the best of motives all the time.
DR. MAHATHIR
Yes. Even if we buy a ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
You never strayed from the holy path.
DR. MAHATHIR
No.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Not once?
DR. MAHATHIR
Well, I wouldn't be able to say. Let's take this example. We decided to buy Russian aeroplanes, fighters. Why? Because Islam ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
From a corrupt communist administration?
DR. MAHATHIR
We are not judging them.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Ah, I see!
DR. MAHATHIR
They are not Muslims.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Ah, OK.
DR. MAHATHIR
What we need, Islam enjoins upon us to be prepared to protect the clergy (inaudible), either this or the Prophet Iman having war horses and bows and arrow. Today we need aeroplanes, we need fighter planes, so we buy because that is enjoined by Islam. At the same time, of course, we have to protect ourselves, so there is ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
So Islam was helpful to you there as well.
DR. MAHATHIR
Yes.
TIM SEBASTIAN
In the purchase of your Russian aircraft.
DR. MAHATHIR
Yes. Not only that. When we emphasised education, that people must learn science and engineering and all that, again, if we don't learn these disciplines, then we will not be able to build the kind of things that will protect us from other people.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right. One question from some of our student population, then I'll come back to your second question. The lady there.
AUDIENCE Q (FEMALE)
This question is directed to Mr. Tarek Heggy. Have you thought about how, you say that people should vote for their own political party, that religion shouldn't interfere in their way of thinking, but did you think about how hard it is for those people when religion has been implanted in their way of life, that religion is intricately woven in the fabric of society, that for them it's hard to separate between those two things, and it might affect their decisions in politics?
TAREK HEGGY
I am talking about (inaudible), the clergy not to rule and govern the society, but I'm not against at all to take the soul into account or to take the values of the religion into account. I am against that we have a class of religious people who keep telling us what to do. For example, I have two fatwa in my briefcase, from a certain Arab country. Actually these two fatwas were for my daughters, probably about your age. They graduated about five years ago. One of them says that you cannot send flowers to the patient because maybe the patient would think that he was cured because of the flowers and not the will of God. This what will happen to us if we leave ourselves to this cadre of people, but we leave ourselves to the values, to the religion, but we don't, and I heard the other side of the table saying, but they don't want to admit, they are saying exactly what I was saying, they didn't say one new word, and I don't get scared of people just because they were once very senior. And the other fatwa that you will not believe it: women should not handle the Internet without a (inaudible) because, and this is ... (overlap)
TIM SEBASTIAN
That's a guardian, is it?
TAREK HEGGY
... exactly the phrasing because they said (inaudible), it's a given, (inaudible), it is amazing because I always said in my books, we ask women to hide, which is good, but we don't ask the fox to behave well.
TIM SEBASTIAN
You wanted to come back on that.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
You're looking at extreme cases of clergymen in Saudi Arabia, but it's not the case all over the world. You do find clergymen who are understandable, who can work together in coalition with the government, and I do not see any problem with that, because ... (overlap)
TAREK HEGGY
Me too.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
... I believe that everything in certain amounts will result in the ideal society that we're trying to go towards.
TAREK HEGGY
I totally agree, I don't want them only to be the legislator, I don't want them to be (inaudible). If you ask me, does he have the right to express his views, of course, everybody does, but I don't want him to be the legislator. I don't want the legislator to be just anybody, and this what you're saying, Dr. Mahathir, that you were, because you were selecting. You said, 'I was taking what I used to believe to be the best,' so you were selecting, and that's what we are saying, that they are a component of the society but they are not the legislator and I don't want to see them as the legislator.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Dr. Ibrahim, final question, and then we're going to take a vote.
AUDIENCE Q - DR. SAAD EDDIN IBRAHIM
To Laith, yes, of course there are mosques that are very enlightened, there are Imams who are not very enlightened. The question is, how do we choose? Again, the choice here is a question of people's opinion of what they hear, so ultimately you will have to be democratic and you are democratic, and that is why you judge it for yourself what your understanding of Islam is. Now, where is the enlightened mosque in any of the Arab countries that you consider to be a model? Is it in Afghanistan, is it in Iran, is it in Sudan, is it in Saudi Arabia? We want a model of what you consider to be enlightened mosque, to bring this discussion to some concrete example.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, Laith, let him answer.
LAITH SHUBEILAT
Again, we are striving to achieve something. It is not necessary to have that model now, specially that autocratic rule is everywhere. To start with, I don't like the hypocrisy of discussing an issue where the defender is not there, and be so courageous, before discussing other issues whose defence is right next to you, behind that door. Before opening religion, clergy, whatever it is, if we are courageous enough to sit here and discuss our rulers, autocracy and call a spade a spade, and in the new age, I gave you an example 800 years ago, I didn't want to mention, I told my ruler a piece of my mind representing the people, and I paid for it, so before doing that, finding the courage of discussing (inaudible), head of the security, so courageously, then after that I accept from anyone who has this courage to open up the subject of religion and criticise, but to be a coward in standing up against tyrants and now that because this is allowed, so to start opening this subject and moving the title. Dr. Saad Eddin criticised the statement. Now, Tarek is using, as if we are defending clergy, you put mosque and state. By mosque we understood religion. Now, that's why his statement is close to ours. We did not defend clergy, especially not the clergy appointed by rulers to hail them, but clergy who were like the professors of the universities you see where they get voted by their peers who advance knowledge and get the vote by their peers, and the respect of the people. That is enlightened mosque. From where do you want me to get an enlightened mosque? From Saudi Arabia, from that the pampered, pampered, pampered, pampered, and everybody was pampering it, they knew that they had the most backward clergy who never told the ruler a piece of their mind, and they want now to hold me here to defend those clergy who accept all these atrocities and all what's happening, all the injustices happening, you want me now, as a Muslim, to defend them? So certainly I will not. I join forces with you indicting them. I think that they are, all of us who do not stand up to the tyrant are the prime culprits in our societies, because a ruler does not become a tyrant except when he has people like us shutting up and not telling him what he should do and what he should not.

TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, I knew we would end this discussion on a quiet non-controversial note. Thank you very much indeed. It's time to vote, the motion that 'This House believes in the separation of Mosque and State'. If you support that motion, please raise your hands and keep them up there long enough for us to be able to count. Just keep them there, we are busy counting you. And those against the motion. The motion has been carried. I want to thank all our panellists very much, our distinguished panellists for taking part. I want to thank the Qatar Foundation for hosting us, and our superb technical team who drove a six-ton lorry across the desert for several days to be with us, thank you so much for doing your work, thank you for being here. We will be back in January. Thank you very much indeed.