On the contrary, Ovamir's views are extremely popular among contemporary Muslims. And that is the reason why people like Ovamir can speak freely in the Muslim majority countries while people like Mustafa cannot.
First of all, NO ONE punishes you in Pakistan for eating food let alone drinking water in Ramadan. In fact, almost all the bakeries and general stores are open throughout the day, only fast food chains and hotels aren't. There is NO haram police in Pakistan in such a manner. Mustafa sb has exaggerate it.
Keep up the good work Ahki. This kinda of discourses are very much needed. Even if we don’t agree on somethings. I would suggest if possible do more talks on the obligations of khilafah and how Muslims today can make that a reality Jazak Allahu khairn
Ovamir is a right tool. Had no arguments other than insults and when pressed to give his justifications for something, simply said, ‘read my articles’. Well, why on earth did you participate in this dialogue??
Very great debate, interesting articulated and informative. Hope to hear more on the channel. Recently the term liberalism is always used in many polemics but seldom clearly defined... That term has become the cultural scarecrow of our modern cultural landscape ... On a deeper level, there is more to say about philosophical liberalism and Islam. For instance, we could argue thatprobably Locke's liberalism owes a lot to Islam as Locke himself was a disciple of the British orientalist Pococke... There is a whole forgotten history to rediscover here...
Ovamir: The world is facing ecological catastrophe and, therefore, Akyol should forget about being unjustifiably detained by the Malaysian police. WTF! 😁😁
I feel anjum is unable to engage in good faith, or with an understanding of liberalism in general. “Liberal has no philosophical foundation” yeah sure I agree, but that isn’t relevant to how a political philosophy functions. Whether something has a rational basis or not, isn’t really relevant to how or whether it would be established as an inter-subjective political foundation. Even if liberalism smuggles religious values into things, how does this then relate to whether we should for some given utilitarian cause adopt liberalism? The real problem isn’t the philosophical ground liberalism lacks but the failure of that philosophical ground to establish meaningful human relationships and purposes.
Ovamir made good points, which were unfortunately overshadowed by his apologetical/polemical line of approach. We need more thinkers like Akyol & hopefully this will get the staunch traditionalists out of their naive historical decontextualization of the Islamic tradition & revelation, the latter being a more contentious issue. Its just believers wanted God to do more, so they put the Quran on an imaginary standard & any view challenging this hermeneutic like a Fazlur Rahman/ Avincennan reading mentioned by Ovamir is unfairly dismissed as “kufr” or “zandiqa” with an appeal to emotion & to avoid some cognitive dissonance
Not much familiar with Dr Anjum, but found his presentation here and in another recent lecture very impressive indeed. I'll be listening more to him. He did a really good job in highlighting the holes in the "progressive" methodology.
Yes,Islam needs reformation n that is to shun Cultural baggage.Strip it to basics that are its pillars....Tawheed,modesty, charity respect for humanity,tolerance,patience n to stay away from bringing cultural practices that clash with the Rahem essence that is so dear to Islam.
Dr Anjum provide much better solution. He didnt said we should blindly follow tradition, we can and should reform revive sharia with modern era. But it have to come frm within Islam. Tradition needs to reform with due respect and proper understanding. Definitely Not with Liberal morals. Mr Mustafa argument is it have to be based on Liberalism which is a foreign ideology to muslims not based on Sharia or Tradition and have constantly changing nature. also his argument about reform jews and christians r so bad....why we should follow these People when they watered down their religion so much that it almost dont impact any things in their life. It doesn't make any sense. Its like he want us to win Brownie point to please the society we r currently living. Also when we argue with other people obviously we know they dont believe in Sharia. So we need to use their own ideology to show their hypocrisy. But it doesn’t mean we fully agree with that ideology. Some ideas of mr Muftafa is interesting but it has to be frm within.
My God it was painful to listen to Ovamir, even outside the personal attacks. Akyol started with the history of slavery as an example of need of context, which was a sound argument with nothing nefarious in it and no ‘hidden liberal agenda’ behind it. To that Ovamir goes “Oh so you want us to be like non-Muslims huh?? So you want to pick and choose your Islam just say it…” The heck is he on about? It’s a Karen-like rant against whatever immediately came to his mind on reading the words ‘liberal reformation’. And the rant just keeps getting worse.
We are far more enlightened than the liberal self righteous racist woman hating idiots. The rest of the world needs Islam and an erasure of liberalism.
Listended to the debate. Ovamir just brought polemics to the conversation. Later I understand that he’s a salafi. So not surprised by his antics at all.
What does this even mean? In what world do only Salafis disagree with liberal modernists? You claim "Maturidi" in your title. Tell me how many "traditional Sunnis" are on board with a liberal reformist project?
We need to reinterpret the Quran and Hadiths, to make them compatible with modernity & Humanity. Specially words like Kafir, Riba etc Kafir should be reinterpreted from Non-Muslims to Jinns who follow Satan. Riba should be reinterpreted to 'Sex against money' or prostitution.
Modern liberalism is fundamentally opposed to Islam. In fact its opposition to the Muslim and ' other' world is what the concept of modern liberalism is defined in relation to. Akyoldoes not present a deep understanding of liberalism and I feel his whole argument is therefore flawed. He suffers from the same chip on the shoulder of the Muslim worlds need to define itself in relation to Liberal values instead of on its own terms.
I think it is quite ridiculous to think that such thing as stoning is even part of Islam. You have be out of your mind to accept that God have said such thing in the Quran. I highly recommend Dr. Adnan Ibrahim he is by far the most competent reformist scholar of today. He clearly explained how stoning is a barbaric practice and that the Quran alleged interpretation was never about stoning.
Why would stoning being part of Islam be ridiculous when have punishments of crucifixion and cutting opposite limbs prescribed in the quran. Maidah verse 33
Please read this book before saying anything about corporal punishment, the author is a top American criminologist ."Civilization_and_Barbarism_Punishing_Criminals_in_the_Twenty_first century" by Graeme R Newman
Why don't you read muslim jurists? There is no reason for us to read some non-muslim treatise on a topic that we have covered better for longer than you
Is Dr Anjum saying that there is an explicit TEXTUAL contradiction in the Quran that cannot be resolved without recourse to extra-textual sources (in this case the Sunnah) ? But the Quran claims that there is no contradiction in IT. Are we then to say that the apparent meaning of the verse is to be rejected (that the Quranic text alone is without contradiction) and that what the verse intends is that the Quran-plus-Sunnaic-explanation is without contradiction? Perhaps he misworded what he intended. For most Muslims, I'm sure that must sound like a very novel understanding of the Quranic claim that it is without contradiction. As for the substance of the dialogue, Dr Anjum appears equivocal in his stance in being open to Dr Aykol's reservations around personal freedom amd coercive religion, albeit he would, I think, seek an internal justification for any departure from majoriitarian sunni legal positions. Dr Aykol was unable to demonstrate why Quranic laws relating to public policy are in all cases limited to a 7th century Arabian context and Dr Anjum was right in reminding him that the ulama did jot cherry-pick from the Quran but applied specification using an internally consistent logic. I was however shocked at the aggressive personal approach Dr Anjum took but I'm sure he'd not apologise for it and would say that the stakes are too high. We should have more discussions like this and I hope there's a follow-up as both scholars did come to some sort of meeting of minds.
This Mustafa guy is very dangerous and I'm not those who do takfir or cancel culture but he is not to be invited in muslim platforms how can you say with confidence without shame that I am selective to the Quran because I value more man-made laws this is clearly Kufr
We are benefiting from dr ovaimer immensely. May Allah protect him and let us benifit more from him insha Allah
Allah bless Dr ovarim. For speaking the truth. Even if it’s not popular
On the contrary, Ovamir's views are extremely popular among contemporary Muslims. And that is the reason why people like Ovamir can speak freely in the Muslim majority countries while people like Mustafa cannot.
May Allah bless Ustadh Ovamir Anjum.
First of all, NO ONE punishes you in Pakistan for eating food let alone drinking water in Ramadan. In fact, almost all the bakeries and general stores are open throughout the day, only fast food chains and hotels aren't. There is NO haram police in Pakistan in such a manner. Mustafa sb has exaggerate it.
Keep up the good work Ahki. This kinda of discourses are very much needed. Even if we don’t agree on somethings. I would suggest if possible do more talks on the obligations of khilafah and how Muslims today can make that a reality Jazak Allahu khairn
Ovamir is a right tool. Had no arguments other than insults and when pressed to give his justifications for something, simply said, ‘read my articles’.
Well, why on earth did you participate in this dialogue??
Be ready to stand in front of Allah for those words
Very great debate, interesting articulated and informative. Hope to hear more on the channel.
Recently the term liberalism is always used in many polemics but seldom clearly defined... That term has become the cultural scarecrow of our modern cultural landscape ... On a deeper level, there is more to say about philosophical liberalism and Islam. For instance, we could argue thatprobably Locke's liberalism owes a lot to Islam as Locke himself was a disciple of the
British orientalist Pococke... There is a whole forgotten history to rediscover here...
Just couldn’t listen further from 34 min in as Dr. Anjun ‘s simplistic understanding of the Islamist leaders and how he relates to his thesis.
Ovamir: The world is facing ecological catastrophe and, therefore, Akyol should forget about being unjustifiably detained by the Malaysian police. WTF! 😁😁
I feel anjum is unable to engage in good faith, or with an understanding of liberalism in general. “Liberal has no philosophical foundation” yeah sure I agree, but that isn’t relevant to how a political philosophy functions. Whether something has a rational basis or not, isn’t really relevant to how or whether it would be established as an inter-subjective political foundation. Even if liberalism smuggles religious values into things, how does this then relate to whether we should for some given utilitarian cause adopt liberalism? The real problem isn’t the philosophical ground liberalism lacks but the failure of that philosophical ground to establish meaningful human relationships and purposes.
Ovamir made good points, which were unfortunately overshadowed by his apologetical/polemical line of approach. We need more thinkers like Akyol & hopefully this will get the staunch traditionalists out of their naive historical decontextualization of the Islamic tradition & revelation, the latter being a more contentious issue. Its just believers wanted God to do more, so they put the Quran on an imaginary standard & any view challenging this hermeneutic like a Fazlur Rahman/ Avincennan reading mentioned by Ovamir is unfairly dismissed as “kufr” or “zandiqa” with an appeal to emotion & to avoid some
cognitive dissonance
Wow, so glad I found this channel
Keep to the Koran Forget the West
Great podcast. May Allah honour us by giving us back the Khilafah
Not much familiar with Dr Anjum, but found his presentation here and in another recent lecture very impressive indeed. I'll be listening more to him. He did a really good job in highlighting the holes in the "progressive" methodology.
Sirs,no need for liberal reformation.
Just treat it as an Arab religion and not a repository of everything on earth.
Dr Ovamir Anjum has made very logical points. Thank you!
This was a marvel! It is intriguing to note that Dr Fazlur Rehman Malik was consistently invoked as reference.
Yes,Islam needs reformation n that is to shun Cultural baggage.Strip it to basics that are its pillars....Tawheed,modesty, charity respect for humanity,tolerance,patience n to stay away from bringing cultural practices that clash with the Rahem essence that is so dear to Islam.
Dr Anjum provide much better solution. He didnt said we should blindly follow tradition, we can and should reform revive sharia with modern era. But it have to come frm within Islam. Tradition needs to reform with due respect and proper understanding. Definitely Not with Liberal morals. Mr Mustafa argument is it have to be based on Liberalism which is a foreign ideology to muslims not based on Sharia or Tradition and have constantly changing nature. also his argument about reform jews and christians r so bad....why we should follow these People when they watered down their religion so much that it almost dont impact any things in their life. It doesn't make any sense. Its like he want us to win Brownie point to please the society we r currently living. Also when we argue with other people obviously we know they dont believe in Sharia. So we need to use their own ideology to show their hypocrisy. But it doesn’t mean we fully agree with that ideology. Some ideas of mr Muftafa is interesting but it has to be frm within.
My God it was painful to listen to Ovamir, even outside the personal attacks. Akyol started with the history of slavery as an example of need of context, which was a sound argument with nothing nefarious in it and no ‘hidden liberal agenda’ behind it.
To that Ovamir goes “Oh so you want us to be like non-Muslims huh?? So you want to pick and choose your Islam just say it…”
The heck is he on about? It’s a Karen-like rant against whatever immediately came to his mind on reading the words ‘liberal reformation’. And the rant just keeps getting worse.
God bless Mustafa Akyol. He is doing great by trying to bring enlightenment in muslim countries.
He's bringing nothing but enslavement.
@@abdullahk8691 what a stupid statement!!!
We are far more enlightened than the liberal self righteous racist woman hating idiots. The rest of the world needs Islam and an erasure of liberalism.
He's bringing darkness like the hundreds of thousands of westernized muslims that have led the muslim world for the last 100 years
Enlightment has only brought by Allah this Mustafa guy nobody even know who he is
I can’t believe this is even up for discussion..
With all due respect Dr Ovamir didnt offer concrete well argued points come on man, we could do better to defend tradition
Listended to the debate. Ovamir just brought polemics to the conversation. Later I understand that he’s a salafi. So not surprised by his antics at all.
What does this even mean? In what world do only Salafis disagree with liberal modernists? You claim "Maturidi" in your title. Tell me how many "traditional Sunnis" are on board with a liberal reformist project?
@Fahim Faruk As a Maturidi, I'd say not many.
Also brother @Maturidi Wesley , this name-calling is not helpful...
So why don't the two of us debate the issue? I won't bring any polemics but you probably will!
The journalist has a better historical sense than the historian. The historian is polemical and journalistic in his "criticism".
Timeline please
We need to reinterpret the Quran and Hadiths, to make them compatible with modernity & Humanity.
Specially words like Kafir, Riba etc
Kafir should be reinterpreted from Non-Muslims to Jinns who follow Satan.
Riba should be reinterpreted to 'Sex against money' or prostitution.
Why don't you invent your own religion?
So basically, create a religion. No thanks. Go back to your cave.
Modern liberalism is fundamentally opposed to Islam. In fact its opposition to the Muslim and ' other' world is what the concept of modern liberalism is defined in relation to. Akyoldoes not present a deep understanding of liberalism and I feel his whole argument is therefore flawed. He suffers from the same chip on the shoulder of the Muslim worlds need to define itself in relation to Liberal values instead of on its own terms.
I think it is quite ridiculous to think that such thing as stoning is even part of Islam. You have be out of your mind to accept that God have said such thing in the Quran. I highly recommend Dr. Adnan Ibrahim he is by far the most competent reformist scholar of today. He clearly explained how stoning is a barbaric practice and that the Quran alleged interpretation was never about stoning.
Why would stoning being part of Islam be ridiculous when have punishments of crucifixion and cutting opposite limbs prescribed in the quran. Maidah verse 33
its literally wrrtten in the quran
Please share the name of background music
Khorasan by Sami yusuf
Please read this book before saying anything about corporal punishment, the author is a top American criminologist
."Civilization_and_Barbarism_Punishing_Criminals_in_the_Twenty_first century" by Graeme R Newman
Can you please summarise it?
Why don't you read muslim jurists? There is no reason for us to read some non-muslim treatise on a topic that we have covered better for longer than you
Admin would you orginize a debat between this Mustafa guy and Mohammad Hijabi?
I feel lucky to find Mustafa Akyol…. Thanks God we can have a discussion like this ….. not possible in Pakistan…. We need to change!
Caliphs or khulafaa/Khalifas not caleephs
1:07:55 omg.. what the f is Ovamir on about??? 😂😂🤦🏽♂️ what a joker.
Thinking Muslim ftwwwwww
Is Dr Anjum saying that there is an explicit TEXTUAL contradiction in the Quran that cannot be resolved without recourse to extra-textual sources (in this case the Sunnah) ?
But the Quran claims that there is no contradiction in IT. Are we then to say that the apparent meaning of the verse is to be rejected (that the Quranic text alone is without contradiction) and that what the verse intends is that the Quran-plus-Sunnaic-explanation is without contradiction?
Perhaps he misworded what he intended.
For most Muslims, I'm sure that must sound like a very novel understanding of the Quranic claim that it is without contradiction.
As for the substance of the dialogue, Dr Anjum appears equivocal in his stance in being open to Dr Aykol's reservations around personal freedom amd coercive religion, albeit he would, I think, seek an internal justification for any departure from majoriitarian sunni legal positions. Dr Aykol was unable to demonstrate why Quranic laws relating to public policy are in all cases limited to a 7th century Arabian context and Dr Anjum was right in reminding him that the ulama did jot cherry-pick from the Quran but applied specification using an internally consistent logic.
I was however shocked at the aggressive personal approach Dr Anjum took but I'm sure he'd not apologise for it and would say that the stakes are too high.
We should have more discussions like this and I hope there's a follow-up as both scholars did come to some sort of meeting of minds.
This Mustafa guy is very dangerous and I'm not those who do takfir or cancel culture but he is not to be invited in muslim platforms how can you say with confidence without shame that I am selective to the Quran because I value more man-made laws this is clearly Kufr
What's this mesmerising music in the background?
Horasan by Sami Yusuf