Comprehensive Intellectual Dialogue with the Yemeni Al-Masdar Newspaper

• The burden of religious discourse in all of its manifestations, mostly inherited, is the fruit of the decline of civilization. This muddles the purpose of religion in the lives of people turning it into a mere servant to conflicts and agendas which do not serve people’s lives or people themselves. In your opinion, what is the essential purpose of religion and what is the path to purifying religious discourse from those [unwanted] things which have been attached to it?

All praise is due to God and may His blessings and greetings be bestowed on our liege-lord, Muhammad, and his family.  I agree with you on some of the things mentioned in the introduction before beginning to deal with the end result: There is an inherited burden in present day Islamic discourse. It is the fruit of a recent phase which we can link to the fall of the Uthmani caliphate and events which followed its fall. There were some problems before this event which affected Islamic discourse. Nevertheless, after this phase, Islamic discourse was subject to two problematic issues. The first one was changing the formation mechanism for the person who assumes Islamic discourse. This includes the transformation of his preparation as a person who assumes Islamic discourse from a path of reception linked to the chain of transmission [sanad], where we find interconnected a chain of transmission with a chain of knowledge and a chain of purification of the soul as well as its upbringing, and substituting it with academia as a means of studying the sacred sciences.    
Academia is extremely beneficial as a methodology of modern research which human intellect has access to when it accompanies the original methodology [traditionally] acquired to prepare the person who assumes Islamic discourse. In the past no one would dare rise on the minbar [a pulpit in the mosque where the imam, leader of prayer, stands to deliver Friday sermons] except for he who was authorized to do so by a scholar. This scholar was already fully acquainted with the person he authorized, his knowledge, his ability to address people, his morality, his behavior, the purification of his heart in addition to his sincerity in this field. Nowadays, the situation of the person who uses Islamic discourse when speaking is somewhat chaotic.   
The second problem which has affected Islamic discourse is the acute, rapid inclination towards a methodology which carries terminology that [tries to] abbreviate the wide understanding of Islamic discourse in content and in means of conveyance. This abbreviation is highlighted in a way that it makes any one person, of the many who assume Islamic discourse, feel as though they are the only true representative of Islam. As a result we have stepped towards emptying the content of Islamic discourse of its extremely high value: the value of diversity and the acceptance of multiple opinions and perspectives.   
These two problematic issues afterwards have caused many problems which I previously mentioned in the conclusion present in the question. Regarding the answer to the conclusion which I illustrated with that introduction, it consists of the fact that this question needs the joining of efforts as well as the assumption of responsibility by each individual who represents a party in this issue. Scholars have the largest share of responsibility along with leaders, the media in the Islamic world, men who work in finances, business, the economy and the members of the academic community who teach and prepare the younger generations. These five groups I believe have a primary responsibility. Then there is a secondary responsibility which goes back to the listener who originally receives and is affected by the discourse. However, the listener, if he increases his awareness a bit, may be able to contribute towards straightening this discourse. This idea can be illustrated with the following example. If the listener observes that the person who is directing the discourse carries a tone of repression or of mobilizing one group against another within the Muslim community, then the listener should make the speaker aware in a polite manner that this is unacceptable and walk away without making a ruckus, yelling or causing problems. This way, a certain amount of correction sets in; and the person who expresses an Islamic discourse feels that if he swerves away from this path, he will not find anyone willing to listen to him. So we need an effort on both sides of the message. Nevertheless, the larger portion of responsibility falls on the scholars who should make sure the people follow this. By the same token, the Prophet, divine prayers and greetings upon him, said: “Verily, God does not rip knowledge away from the servants. He takes knowledge away by taking away the scholars who possess it. So when there are no scholars left, the people turn fools into their leaders. They will give fatwas [rulings] with no knowledge. They will become deviated while deviating others.” Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of Knowledge, Number 100.
These indicators mentioned by the Prophet, divine prayers and greetings upon him and his family, make us feel the importance of taking another look at who exactly conveys Islamic discourse. There is also another issue: the creation of awareness towards respecting the concept of “specialization” within the arena of Islamic discourse. Experts in hadeeth, in the past, would never dare give a fatwa in fiqh except if the expert in hadeeth became specialized in fiqh. Then he would be an expert in both hadeeth and fiqh. The expert in “ilmu al-kalam” [the science of theology] and “ilmu al-tawheed” [the science of the uniqueness of God] would not dare transform the result of his conclusions into rulings to be announced to people. The reason was that he saw that there was already a specialist in the field responsible for this task.
Nowadays, anybody who is specialized in one of these fields attributes to himself the right to speak as if he were also a specialist in all other fields. This situation has undermined the respect towards the concept of specialization within Islamic discourse. So it is important to stress that the revival of the path of spiritual purification and the kindling of sincerity within the hearts of those who serve this discourse will have a great impact. Finally, the entire answer may be summarized in two points. The first point is to give authority to those who it belongs to. The second point is to expand the field for institutionalized action based on serving discourse and not taking advantage of it. 

• Religious discourse has tarnished the function of religion in human lives. In your opinion, what is the function of religion in the lives of people?

The function of religion means that faith is a lamp in our lives which illuminates the path for people. It is also a factor which pushes people towards this path. Religion has two fundamentals. The first one is connected to reason, a path of clarification through which religion clarifies to people the road their lives take and where they will return. The second fundamental is the creation of a motive within people to encourage them to act in conformity with the insight their intellect provides them with. Intellect addresses the heart, the soul and the ego which illustrate the motive for action and progress. It intellectually reveals to people their path in all aspects of their lives.

• Can we say that religion is a political system of a nation?

Religion is bigger than the term “political system of a nation.” One of the things through which we sometimes do not realize we are unfair to religion is when we reduce it to the concept of political system. We are afraid to separate religion from politics so we have transformed religion into a part of politics without understanding we should have done the opposite.
Religion is included in those issues linked to the nation. It addresses its rulers on how a nation should work. However, it should not be transformed into a means through which an authority, in the name of religion, is implemented for other purposes.
Religion has directions, guidelines and instructions linked to the economy. However, religion should not be transformed into something through which transactions are carried out in the economic arena. Religion has an essential role in pushing a Muslim towards the field of science, applied and experimental studies while discovering the symbols of life and the world we live in. Nevertheless, religion in itself should not become a tool used for this objective. On the contrary, religion becomes a motive which pushes people so they learn, understand and know life in a way it becomes beneficial for others and not prejudicial.
Religion is what gave us the greatest scientific inventors during the age of Islamic renaissance. It protected these people so that the fruit of their civilization would not be a subject easy to assimilate for other people to change it into a means of corrupting the Earth just as we are witness to in today’s civilization.

• Is the present pluralism in Islamic legal schools a virtue or a problem? In the light of what we see happening in more than one place in the Islamic world, pluralism in Muslim society has become a source of internal fighting and conflict.

In Yemen there have never been any battles due to the question of differences between legal schools. Our problem is radicalism and not legal schools. Pluralism in legal schools is one of God’s greatest blessings. … The Truth [one of the names of God], Great and Exalted is He, is capable of making His message, which comes in the absolutely authentic texts, a message which has no room for dissent.
However, due to wisdom He wanted, He made the text not only on many occasions but on the majority of occasions carry more than one lecture in order to allow room for pluralism in ijtihad [the endeavor of a Moslem scholar to derive a rule of divine law from the Koran and Hadith without relying on the views of other scholars] to allow the intellect of human beings, their circumstances and the differences in time and place to assimilate the conclusions or ijtihad. So the problem is not in the pluralism in jurisprudence, which is one of God’s blessings. It is in how people see ijtihad and pluralism in legal schools, especially in contemporary times.
The problem is when some people come and attribute the sacred character of the text to their understanding of the text. The text is sacred as it is infallible. However, the understanding of a text by some people and their Ijtihad in how they understand it, along with the conclusions they extract from the text, does not give the text its infallibility. So when some people started to attribute to their Ijtihad, in the comprehension of the texts, the sanctity of the texts themselves and edict rulings to people on that basis, this is when these problems emerged. When personal, political, nationalistic or self whims and interests began to influence religious discourse, there was no longer room for disagreement. When the spirit of self-purification weakened, the same spirit which provides people with insight and understanding of the elevated Quranic Sunnah [prophetic tradition], the Sunnah of self criticism - and I am not excluding myself from this -, it became easy for a number of loud mouths who participate in Islamic discourse with mechanisms of transmission through institutions and media, to attack each other and turn the huge blessing of pluralism and different legal schools into the malice of strife and dispute. 
In the past, the Ummah [nation of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him] rested on cultivated, established and deep-rooted legal schools as was the case of the four schools we have, the school of the Sunnis, the school of our brothers the Zaydis, the school of our brothers, the Twelve Imams, and the school of our brothers, the Ibadis. The relationship in which the wealth of knowledge accumulated in each one of these schools, little by little enabled them to assimilate this pluralism. In Yemen for more than one thousand years, Sunnis and Zaydis have been living together in peace. We never heard of any battles waged in the sphere of religion due to differences in legal schools. There have been political battles but never has there been a battle in Yemen because of differences between legal schools. On the contrary, peaceful coexistence has reigned marvelously. The problem began when new religious invitations appeared with no connection to the deep rooted schools, each one with an accumulation of civilization, knowledge and culture long established in the Ummah. These new religious invitations, instead of being an addition of renewal to Ijtihad, emerged with an ax to destroy the Ijtihad of those before us trying to take its place. They try to exclude anyone who disagrees with them. This is the real problem and not the differences between legal schools.

• In other words, can we say that the problem consist of “trying to exclude the other” in addition to tribalism? Can we also say the problem is not innovation in the sense of being open to new ideas as this stance is present everywhere even in Yemen?

The problem is in legal school – tribalism and in trying to exclude the other in addition to a third problem which is the chaos which has taken over Islamic discourse. The problem is not the existence of a new mujtahid [a person who practices ijtihad, a legalist whose decisions in legal questions are based on his own understanding of the Quran and Sunnah]. The problem is a person who claims to be a mujtahid and is not prepared to do so. The problem is a person who enters the arena of Islamic discourse and he is not prepared to assume such a role. This is just like a person who wants to open a medical clinic and he has not studied medicine or he did not complete his studies and failed. He was able to deal with the psychology of a patient and so was given a scalpel. This is without a doubt a crime.
In our religion there is no clergy. There is no control over Islamic discourse authority wise. However, there is respect towards specialization. People, who have not been able to learn the foundations of the Arabic language, Fiqh [jurisprudence], or even the discipline of logic, suddenly jump to the level of mujtahid [legalist]. They begin to claim Al-Shafi’i, Malik, Zayd and Abdu Al-Hadi made mistakes and they say they have a new and wider vision.
Here we tell them to take it easy. We want you to have a wide vision and the door of Ijtihad is open. No one can close it but [before you embark on it] prepare for it and, then, be our guest. Among the signs of preparation is understanding the meaning of respect towards those who preceded you in this field. You may differ with the imams who preceded you but in what kind of way? This is like a child who comes along – and excuse me for using this expression – and enters the field of Islamic discourse. He walks up to the minbar [the place in the mosque the imam gives the Friday sermon] and pulverizes Al-Shafi’i, Malik, Abu Hanifa, Ahmad, Zayd and Al-Hadi along with great scholars from within the legal schools like Al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalani. He calls this one a fool and speaks against the other. Here, the issue becomes a type of stupidity with the [false] image of renewal.

• By the term “pulverize” you mean “disdain.”

I mean “disdain” and judging what those imams have concluded as outside of religion. We have mentioned two important points: tribalism and removal of the other. I will add a third point: chaos in the concept of renewal. We hear of a people who want to bring something new, something attracts the attention of others in order to create from it the image of a developed or modern Islamic personality or someone with a new, broad vision, who seamlessly wants to erase something agreed upon by Muslim scholars. I am not referring to the Ijtihad of Shafi’i or Malik but something agreed upon by the imams of the Muslims, the predecessors [Al-Salaf, or first generations of Muslims] and the followers [Al-Khalaf, or later generations of brilliant Muslim scholars]. They want to do this under the pretext that they have a new vision in Islamic discourse. The issue sparks doubt and is one that needs contemplation and discernment.
I repeat that there are new factors which have entered regarding issues, in the past, the concepts of which were part of the reason behind the ruling. The ruling in sacred law, in any specific issue, has become such and such because the prevailing understanding at the time is that the reason behind it is such and such. Subsequently, if it were to be confirmed later on, with the progress of human awareness in addition to the advances reached by humanity in scientific revelations, that the reason behind a legal ruling was not valid then I would not follow it. I would not follow it even if it were a ruling given by Al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, Malik, Abu Hanifa or Zayd. However, if the question was not based originally on varying factors and not on things that change with time and place, then who is the person who that wants to destroy the Ijtihad of those who proceeded him in something that has not changed? We consider this the core of the problem in Islamic discourse.

• Specialization in medicine and engineering is based on foundations which are recognized internationally. So, based on studies which range from four to six years, the person becomes specialized. However, in the field of Islam, there are no internationally recognized foundations which everyone is familiar with.

On the contrary, there are foundations. At the beginning of our conversation, I reminded you that substituting the traditional methodology of Islamic education with an academic study of Islamic law in transmitting, receiving and teaching Islam is the cause of the disaster we are talking about. People no longer have a way of knowing whether a person is prepared or not. So whoever has a doctorate is considered prepared even if he is ignorant. The same goes for someone who is eloquent like the person who is speaking to you right now. He speaks well and appears on satellite TV channels and is considered a reference in everything. This is a mistake.
In the past, there was a superior and clear methodology and, unfortunately, it is taught in European universities. It is the basis of doctoral thesis which research the Maghribi methodological school in teaching sacred law and preparing scholars, the traditional Levantine school, the Yemeni schools – and not Yemeni school – such as the school of Sana’a and Dhamar, the school of Hadramaut, the school of Zabid, the Indian school in the preparation of Hadeeth scholars, the Iraqi methodological school in the preparation of scholars and the Azhar methodology with the same objective.
Now, there are higher studies in specialized faculties in the study of pedagogical methodologies, at a time when there is a lack of, in some of these places I have mentioned, the aforementioned methodologies which have been substituted with the imported academic methodology. This academic methodology has not been imported as a complementary methodology, which I welcome very much and see as beneficial, but rather as a substitute of the methodology of Islamic discourse defined by those who are prepared.

• Is there a movement in the field which aspires to unite Islamic discourse or is it practically speaking difficult to implement?

I do not believe we need to unify Islamic discourse but I do believe there is a need to complete it. The talk about unifying Islamic discourse is similar to the talk about that which is impossible practically speaking. Additionally, I do not see that unifying Islamic discourse will benefit religion. We want difference in opinion to be amazing. Additionally, we want pluralism to be refined. However, there should be work towards extending Islamic discourse from that phase of detested pluralism based on opposition and removal of the other to the phase of a pluralism that is complementary.

• There are many new preachers and Islamists who call for dialogue with the West. In my opinion these are attempts to shine and deny accusations of extremism, terrorism and inflexibility. So why is there no one among those preachers who adopts the call to Islamic-Islamic dialogue? Until now there are no calls for an Islamic-Islamic dialogue between the Islamic schools, sects and groups. Why don’t we see debates of knowledge, deep rooted, documented on an international scale between different religious groups?

With all my respect to your point of view regarding the motive that has carried some contemporary preachers to the point of moving towards dialogue with the West, except that I maintain this point of view as well as the terminology of the new preachers. I will say that there are two orders issued by God, Great and Glorious is He, among the orders given. There is an order linked to the Muslims which stipulates: “And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves” There is another order which is linked to the universality of this religion: “Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious,” “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation),” and “Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you.”  
It is not feasible for me to neglect one thing in benefit of another. When I say it is not feasible for me to address the world or dialogue with it so it understands my religion and my culture and so that I understand its culture and arrive with the reasonable people among them to what is mutually beneficial for humanity and Muslims in order to fix the internal affairs of Muslims, this is not speaking pragmatically. A pragmatic way of speaking is saying: Yes, we back worldwide dialogue which begins with a number of great preachers and scholars today speaking with the other. Along with the same successful, refined, fruitful dialogue in our time with the other, we demand an internal dialogue with ourselves with the same objective.
Regarding dialogue with the other, thank God, over the last two years there have been excellent results. It is not the fault of this dialogue that Arab media has disregarded or tarnished it insincerely, concealing from the reader or listener the fruits reaped by those who conduct this dialogue for the benefit of Islamic discourse and humanity. Nevertheless, the fact is there are wonderful results reaped from behind this which are present, authenticated and lasting.  I do not see any praise for the preachers who do this. On the contrary, I see their image tarnished due to the presence of another category among our brothers, the preachers who practice what they suitably deem as their right by appropriating for themselves to preach to everyday people. I do not want to accuse anyone here but I want to say that there is a sort of breach of the principle of honesty by some preachers who reject the concept of dialogue when discussing this issue. That right is theirs as we speak about dialogue. You have the right to reject dialogue and to not practice it. But do not allow that stance to push you to behave unjustly towards your brother, treating him unfairly and attributing to him what he has not said or tarnishing his image mistakenly or in an insincere way. 
Regarding the question of internal dialogue in different Islamic groups and tendencies, there are attempts, old and new, towards this. The biggest impediment we find in this issue is that some people who stand out in some Islamic groups do not deem this issue necessary or they see no benefit in it. Additionally, just as there are those who do not see the benefit in addressing the other, there are those who do not see it in internal dialogue and they deem it better to continue the path of excluding the other. This does not excuse those preachers from taking this path.
There are steps which signal the beginning of this issue. There is contact between a number of important Muslim preachers today. The question needs time before the issue reaches a phase where benefits can be observed. Not only does it need time but it also needs the union of the efforts of our young people working in the media. We also need their help in conveying the principle of accepting internal pluralism as well as its comprehension and adoption. This includes rejecting the practice of those who incite one group against another. So many things depend on your role in this issue. Nevertheless, I am happy to tell you there are steps being taken and you will soon hear, God willing, at the end of this year or the beginning of next, good news regarding this topic.
There has also been an initiative titled “Kalimatin Sawaa’ ”[Common Terms] directed to Christian leaders worldwide which has had more positive results than we expected.  Now, there is also a tendency to form another initiative titled: “Do not Separate” just as big as the previous one with great scholars and preachers addressing other Muslims.

• In relation to the letter sent to the Christians, there is a letter which was sent to the pope which corrects the mistakes and slip ups which were in his famous speech. Was this letter the result of his apology?

The letter was not the result of an apology or the acceptance of an apology because he [the Pope] did not apologize. It was the result of the regret he manifested but it included, and this is the most important thing, a refined style in the correction of the mistakes made while maintaining respect towards the speech. Our website hastened to deny the news that an apology was accepted as some media outlets announced that 38 Muslim preachers and scholars had accepted an apology from the pope, something which made some preachers opposed to the idea of dialogue upset almost causing an internal conflict. They rushed to attack this letter before making sure, may God guide them. They tried to reject internally among the ranks of Muslims the principle of addressing others and having a dialogue with them. This is what pushed us to quickly deny that in the letter there was an acceptance of an apology as the pope did not apologize.
However, the initiative “Kalimatin Sawaa’ ”[Common Terms] is a different letter. It was created and sent to Christian leaders all over the world including the pope. We understand the pope is one of the most important Christian leaders in the world but there are also protestants, orthodox and some Catholics who disagree with him. So this letter was directed to 27 of the most important Christian leaders all over the world. In addition to the first 38 signatories, another 138 signed the letter. Endorsements later followed reaching around five hundred scholars up to now.
This letter included a discourse the contents of which explains that you and I represent 55% of the Earth’s population and that without sincere coexistence between us, there will be no peace. It concentrated on common ground based on two principles: The first principle is love for God, the One Divinity. The second principle is love for thy neighbor and treating him well. We live near each other on this Earth. In the letter, there were verses from the Quran which backed these two principles as well as texts from the Gospel which did not differ with the Quranic verses.
Praise be to God, really excellent reactions came from the majority of the world’s Christian leaders including Protestants, Orthodox and some Catholics. By the same token, 300 Christian authorities mostly from the United States of America including priests, Church authorities, academic theologians and leaders of large Christian institutions sent a letter welcoming . It included in the beginning a recognition of mistakes and sins committed by Christians towards Muslims like the crusades and excesses in the war against terror. They apologized for all of that asking for forgiveness and the turning over of a new page with the Muslims. This initiative is historical. Professor Miroslav Volf president of the Religion & Cultural Center at the well-known Yale University, one of the great Protestant theologians of the United States, who supervised that answer to our letter, told me he had eliminated some of the texts he taught during the semester and replaced them with the explanation of the text of the letter sent by Muslim scholars. So who can say that initiatives like these are fruitless and are merely trying to please others?

• In the framework of dialogue with the other, as preachers don’t you face the problem that your lives do not reflect the greatness of this religion? If this is the case, how do you convince the other about something that has no effect on your lives as a society?

Excellent question. However, this dialogue does not include a dialogue in belief doctrine or theology nor in sacred legislation. Dialogue is based on the principle that you and I are different and, despite this difference, we can learn to live with each other. Then, after this, there is a phase of dialogue concerning legislation as well as dialogue in belief doctrine in closed sessions. Nevertheless, today we are in need of serious dialogue to solve the dilemma that we are in one global village where we hurt and kill one another. How can we live properly in a civilized manner in this way?
Just as the radical behavior of many Muslims does not represent the civilized characteristics we are talking about, many Christians do not illustrate this image either. But for someone who can observe this reality from a different perspective, he may be able to say that we [as Muslims] have our radicals and they [as Christians] have their radicals with the difference that our radicals are marginalized and hidden where their radicals are out in the open in the White House. Our radicals are being pursued by our leaders where their radicals are in leadership positions. While our radicals – like they say – have destroyed two towers killing three thousand people, their radicals have destroyed two nations killing 300 thousand.
There are radicals in the Christian world who have criticized the positive reactions to “Kalimatin Sawaa’” [Common Terms] accusing the people who reacted positively of being criminals and traitors just like what radical Muslims did to us. The good thing that has come out of this is that the reasonable people of both sides have begun to speak to each other. In the past, it was the radicals who represented both sides with the reigns of conflict in their hands while leading the world to conflict.

• Then “dialogue” is not the call to Islam as a religion but rather a call to coexist peacefully within the framework of different religions.

I do not see the call to peaceful coexistence within the framework of the plurality of tendencies or religions but rather as a part of a refined way of calling people to Islam. Furthermore, I believe that some Christians see coexistence as a refined means of calling people to Christianity. We will not lie to each other: There is no sincere Muslim who as a principle does not want to call others to his religion just as there is no sincere Christian who does not see as an act of godliness to call others to join his religion. By the same token, there is not a person who professes liberal secularism who as much as he may talk about coexistence does not want either directly or indirectly call me to his ideology. This is not wrong. Our present call is based on the principle that there are those who are leading the world to a devastating war in the name of religion. So if you want to lead the world to a war in the name of politics or other principles that is your problem. It is unacceptable but it is your problem.  Now, taking religion and disguising the destruction you are aiming for with the clothing of religion whether it be Islam or Christianity, this is intolerable.
There are those who have taken advantage of Islam for other purposes. Not even the holy mosque of Makkah was able to free itself when it was occupied by Juhaiman Al-‘Utaybi and Muhammad Al-Qahtani. Blood flowed on the purest place on Earth in the name of Islam and Shari’a. In the past, as our colleagues have also mentioned in dialogue or in letters of dialogue, the crusaders in the name of the cross and in the name of the Messiah – peace be upon him who is free from this – waged wars. Today, there are leaders in the world who say God ordered them to attack a land as if the Lord stopped talking to the pope because he no longer has enough authority so He has begun to speak to the leaders of nations.
Hence there is a type of benefit from religion for other objectives. Our task in these dialogues is to reveal this game playing with religion taking off the disguise of religion. Show yourselves for what you truly are. You say that religion is no longer influential, and that we are living a life of secularism and liberalism which does not need religion. Then why do hide yourselves behind religion? Speak through the principle of your tendencies and do not play with religion. Even the decisions made today in the Israeli army are not made by religious Jews but rather by secular ones who take advantage of the religious inclination among their masses to mobilize them against the Muslims. This is why we used to see in the media Israeli soldiers during their tyrannical attack against Lebanon praying with the Torah in their hands. Whereas their leading officers apparently did not have the faith their soldiers did. Nevertheless, they took advantage of their religiousness. We saw the same phenomenon in the forces that occupied Iraq where many individuals had copies of the Gospel on them.
There are also Muslims who, in the name of Islam, allure simple Muslims who love their religion as well as those who are oppressed because of the injustice which has spread throughout Muslim lands. They lure them to commit atrocities in the name of Islam despite the fact Islam is not happy with them.
So one of the objectives of this dialogue, in addition to the call to coexistence, is to rip off the dress of religion from these present day games and leave religion in its true pure form.

• In other words, no group has the right to say that its actions and political tendencies are in name of religion even if religion is a factor for it.

No, I didn’t mean that. What I meant was that a person who is not prepared, should not talk about religion. I also meant that whoever talks in the name of religion should not bestow the holiness of religion onto his statements. This is your understanding of religion even if you are prepared to speak in its name. What you are looking at is what you understood from religion, your Ijtihad. So do not oblige other mujtahids or followers to follow your path and not consider them transgressors of religion.

• Do you consider liberalism a counterpart or rival of religious discourse?

That statement does not convince me and I do not see the core of the issue being that liberal discourse in itself is an antithesis or a rival of Islamic discourse. However, the behavior of some Islamists and some liberalists is what created this image before people all over the world. For instance, those who allowed Muslims to build mosques in Europe were never religious Christians because when the Church ruled Europe, Muslims were slaughtered. What happened in Al-Andalus is the best witness of this. However, what opened way for Muslims to build their mosques and practice their call and worship was liberalism. So liberalism is not always a rival of Islam.

• What does the term liberalism mean for you?

It is an ideological and cultural vision which has stood and stood out like a mountain among other mountains of human thought and experience. The part which may, in our era, make it look like it is opposing religion is one of the eras during which it clashed with some religious authorities in Europe. From here, the feeling that religious authority was a handicap preventing progress was sowed into the liberal mental attitude. If we were to understand this question and meditate it properly, our discourse would become more capable of convincing the symbols of liberalism or that person whose starting points are liberal. If they could not be persuaded then at least there would be a mutual understanding with these people.       
There is another problem which has become deep-rooted in the souls of many people who speak with Islamic discourse which is that the meaning of liberalism is anti-religion and most of the people who say this have not read anything on liberalism. Rather they have heard about it during a sermon or through the media and they speak about it based on that. I do not absolve liberalism and I do not see it as the truth which we should be seeking. However, I do not see it as the Satan from which we should seek refuge in God. We should reflect on it as the product of human intellect and experience it is. It has its some flaws and mistakes and needs dialogue to be able to reach what is beneficial. After, it will remain a source among others of human intellect and part of it will remain in the reality that surrounds us. We will not be able to make it disappear if we do not like it.

• Since 9/11, the term “religious discourse renewal” has really stood out. Did this appear because of a genuine necessity on behalf of religious discourse or merely in compliance with outside pressure?

The media gave it prominence after 9/11. Regarding the renewal of religious discourse, this is something which has been announced since the era or the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him who said: “Verily, God sends to this Ummah [nation] at the beginning of each century a person who renews its religion.” [Narrated by Abu Daud, Al-Tabari, Al-Hakim and others]. After, “renewal of religious discourse” emerged as an attitude in different schools until Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz renewed for the Ummah the code of conduct in governance. Imam Al-Shafi’i renewed for the Ummah the methodologies of extracting rulings and fundaments in the second, third, fourth and fifth centuries. Then some realized that “renewal” does not have anything to do with a person in himself but, rather, it could be the result of the work of several people and different schools. So the concept of renewal has existed and I heard about it growing up. However, it was given special attention after 9/11 and I agree with this. Nevertheless, it always existed in the traditional school.

• So then it emanates from an internal need and not just an attempt to please the West.

Primarily it emanates from an internal need but the attention given to it may not be completely exempt from an attempt to please the West. Whatever the case may be, as long as it is the right move and we need it, why do we get uptight about it? Some people have been asking us why we insist so much on the middle path now. After 9/11 you remembered your religion is the religion of the middle path? Our answer is: “no.” We have been speaking about the middle path for a while; even before the events of 9/11. But the microphones were never brought close to our mouths except after what happened. After the events of 9/11, the media and those who direct the media were afraid and saw the dilemma so they brought the microphones close to those who stressed the middle path. So when some people saw that the middle path deserved attention and concern, they got on the train and began speaking about the middle path.
Nevertheless, just because some people are focused on the middle path from starting points and motives from outside, do we deny we need the middle path? Can we deny the present day fact that extremism oppresses our Islamic discourse? Can we deny that the middle path exists in our religion? Does the middle path exist in our religion or not? It does exist in our religion. God says: “We also created you a moderate nation so you bear witness against the people [on the day of judgment that their messengers conveyed the message to them] and so the messenger bears witness against you [that he conveyed the message to you].” Does the problem of extremism affect us? Yes, it does. Does it exist? Yes, we suffer it and we see the carnage committed in the name of religion today between Muslims themselves not to mention the killing of believers and people of the pact [Non-Muslims living in Muslim ruled lands] in a way that is not permitted. So extremism does exist in Islamic discourse.
The middle path belongs to our religion and extremism is oppressing and its voice is loud among our circles. Are not these two introductions enough for the conclusion to be the need to care for the middle path? Yes, they are. Also, with regards to your question …

• As long as the internal need coincides with the international tendency, what is the problem?

Where is the dilemma? The prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, mentioned an alliance in the pre-Islamic era he had cosigned, the Alliance of the Virtuous, saying: “If I were called upon to cosign something like this in the era of Islam, I would answer that call.” “The believer misses wisdom. Wherever, he finds it he takes it.” The fact that the idea of digging trenches comes from the Persians, worshippers of fire at that time, does not make it faulty. Whenever they confronted an enemy who was too strong for them they would dig trenches. So the prophet adopted the idea even though it came from worshippers of fire and so on.

• When we announced the open dialogue with you at the dialogue forum, the majority of questions posed by the members were political. Don’t you consider that as an indicator that in the minds of people the role of the scholar is linked to the field of politics?

I’ve had two experiences in the issue of answering questions. The first one was with Al-Sahwa Net and then with a forum for dialogue. What they both had in common which I noticed were the questions you mentioned which have problems: The first one is the wording used in form of accusation. It is as if the person being asked should be considered a suspect until proven innocent which is contrary to what is accepted. The second one is the character the questions adopted similar to that of the internal conflict present in our countries as if the issue were a battle and not an intellectual debate. The third one touched something I learned. It is important and regards the need by those interested in websites which are related to Islam and dialogue or those websites which intercommunicate with people connected to knowledge and religion; their need for an increase in their reading of events and behavior in a way that is accompanied by the attributes of ascertainment and search for what is beneficial. This is not linked to only readers of the dialogue forum or Sahwa.net. I also encountered this dilemma in the majority of Islamic forums. If a researcher or investigator were to conduct a study of the predominant character of Islamic forums today, he would find they were dominated by conflict and bitter conflict. I am not saying dissent. Dissent is good as long as its foundation is solid. On the other hand, conflict, exclusion of the other and collision of views. It distracts people in an endless vortex that which leads them to a state that is oblivious to the fact that the ummah needs a mature Islamic discourse. I won’t hide from you that, unfortunately, there were things which were really keeping me busy and holding up the question-answering and, nevertheless, I was never able to find a good reason in myself to answer the questions.
So when I review the real issues that have me, scholars and shaykhs busy then I find I have to sit down eight hours to prepare the answer for thirty or forty questions the scope of which is very limited, I feel I have very little motivation to answer any of them.

• But can’t we consider that the resulting condition of people who are really suffering? Should the scholars from all different tendencies be oblivious to this suffering?

I agree with what you are saying but the lack of “obliviousness” does not mean becoming obsessed with it endlessly. This is a condition and it is tangible and I am happy it exists as I am of the perception of the condition. However, I believe that the remedy should not be to take these type of questions easily. The remedy consists of seriously looking into the reasons which have led people to the standpoint that when a man becomes religious, he becomes unpleasant. Before becoming religious, he was fun, nice and kind to people. But as soon as he becomes religious, he turns into an unpleasant person who insults, curses, listens to rumors, accuses and thinks badly of others. Here there is a problem so it is the obligation of the person who observes these type of questions to not just limit himself to answering the question. He should link the view of the person asking the question to the motives, causes, dilemmas or circumstances which have pushed us to this situation with the objective of treating it. Sometimes a part of the remedy is to not pursue these details but, rather, to examine what is behind them. There is a problem for those who assume discourse today as well as the majority of those who speak in the name of Islam. I do not have doubts about the sincerity of the majority of these people as I do not question their love for doing good. However, I believe we need to raise the standards when dealing with each other. In other words, instead of occupying ourselves with the young people influenced by Shaykh Fulan who has criticized Fulan, why don’t I go to that shaykh who spoke to those young people and, patiently, try to clarify the picture for him so he gets to know me and I get to know him? That way, I can assess what makes him act the way he does and he can understand the bases through which I act.
On the level of Yemen, we have lived extremely difficult phases over the last fifty years. The Yemeni people are among the most active Muslim peoples and I am not being fanatically pro-Yemen. They are a people who are very alive and interactive with their surroundings. Unfortunately, the Yemeni of today is a person who is destroyed internally. If it were not for the fact that they were such an active people in addition to the blessing God has given them, they would not have no life in them due to the severity of they have been subject to.
We have excellent, high and great potential along with willingness. This potential and willingness, however, need to be fed in order for the future Yemeni character to be built. There is an elevated loyalty to religion in the spirit of our people but, today, there are factors which are burying this loyalty. At times, some of the people burying it are religious people and they do not realize it. In the mentality of the Yemeni of today there are elevated and beautiful expectations and longing to participate in human life and civilization. Nevertheless, he feels he is on a boat with no paddles, that he is tied and he cannot paddle. The Yemeni people today have the disposition to accept and work with everyone. However, all the problems they have to endure nowadays narrows down the extent of their willingness to reach an understanding with others. The Yemeni people have historical experience in changing the world map population wise without spilling any blood in South East Asia and in East Africa. They are exporters, people of principles and have an elevated vision in Islamic discourse. What is afflicting us today is the fact there is an attack against this vision from inside Yemen because of some new elements from outside which have taken Islamic discourse in Yemen by surprise and have been adopted by Yemenis. The summary of this issue is that the Yemeni people can probably become one of peoples who can most contribute to enriching humanity if and when if we were to take notice of their plight again in an adequate way.

• We have seen recently how people have reacted to the fatwa which prohibits Valentine’s Day with disdain justifying this by saying that the person who his giving the fatwa is oblivious to the genuine difficulties people are going through, including cases of corruption, human rights and liberties. Doesn’t the obliviousness of some scholars to these questions create a gap between them and normal every day people?

In exchange, according to what I have heard, many people also complain that many Friday sermons are busy with day to day political issues to the point that some Friday sermons are like sessions of parliament or a house of representatives. The scholar or preacher should not be absent to the reality that surrounds him. By the same token, he shouldn’t fall face first into it. There should be roles where pluralism is respected, stances and roles which need scholars who speak to the hearts and souls, purify the egos and revive within the hearts the spirit of belief. We are not calling on those people to speak about rising prices, unemployment or corruption. This is their field. We also need another generation of scholars who take care of educational and Fiqh issues such as purification and prayer. Today we hear some people scoff at scholars saying that they are busy with issues regarding menstruation, post-partum and other similar issues and I believe this kind of talk is an error. I do not agree with it. We need scholars who are busy with these issues because many people still do not know these rulings which a Muslim needs daytime and night. We need scholars who address the economic, political and social reality with awareness and comprehension and not just what reaches him through the news and press. An example of the latter is someone who reads a statement in the paper then steps on the minbar [gives a Friday sermon] to speak without any insight or respect for authority in the matter. I will find myself lacing respect towards the turban I am wearing if I give a Friday sermon during which I speak about an economic topic without having sat down with an economist and consulting him on the issue first. Some people, unfortunately, ask for a scholar to be superman and to be able to talk about everything. If he can’t, then he is not a scholar. On the other hand, some scholars answer people´s demands so when he steps on the minbar if it is required of him to speak about Fiqh then he is a faqih, if it is required of him to speak about geology then he is a geologist, or a merchant or politician. Like the old saying goes: “He yelped from where I hit him.”
It was not like this before and this why we need these types of scholars and those. I know that in Yemen there are a number of scholars who touch delicate issues. They speak about the worries of the citizens often. The newspapers are filled with their declarations and the media transmits some of them while the minbars cause an uproar. There are also other scholars who talk about other things.
I may agree with you that the problem of speaking about some innovations such as St. Valentine’s Day or any other holiday sometimes – not for all scholars and I glorify the scholars and their sandals are on my head; additionally, I do not consider myself a scholar but a mere student in their presence – is characterized but there are tones which speak of these superficial innovations which point out that the speaker does not feel the state of mind of those young people who deal with these innovations. I was amazed by an excellent expression of some of these scholars who spoke about St Valentine’s Day saying that we should live love every day as Muslims and not surrender ourselves to accepting the concept of St Valentine’s Day. We might also hear another person say: “Yes, from the concept of St Valentine’s, let us revive the understanding of love without following others in limiting it to the color red or we lower ourselves to provoking carnal desires. In other words, there should be a way of dealing with these issues which is appropriate with the way our children think today. I have heard some scholars discourage the celebration of Mother’s Day. Why? Many Muslims today are negligent when dealing with their mothers despite the fact that God has ordered us to be good towards our parents. So if there is something, even if it is from outside, as long as it is good, why not use it? In addition to the fact we must not concentrate on these issues only, we should, nevertheless, deal with them in a way that is appropriate with the reason and attitude of the person who we want the message to reach. But to make our young people feel, intentionally or unintentionally, that religion is like a drill sergeant who hits them with a stick and that it is forbidden to accept anything or understand anything, this creates a frame of mind in the generation of young people, who are many, that look at religion with the same look the enlightened secular revolutionists had towards the Church. This is dangerous. When a young man or a scientist hears a fatwa that says that the Earth does not rotate, this reminds us of the tribulation of Galileo. We do not want the generation of well educated young people or contemporary university graduates to become people who see religion with those eyes. These are all dilemmas that need to be dealt with properly. Maybe our youth who work with the media like yourselves will have an important role in this issue.

• Then you do believe in having a variety of roles but are not there any priorities?

We should take care of priorities. I agree with this but priorities are also relative. For instance, the priority of someone who does not find bread to eat is to eat bread. The priority of someone who does not have a book and wants one, is to find one. The priority of a person who feels spiritually empty is to find spiritual satisfaction and the priority of someone who is suffering injustice is to lift that injustice from his soldiers. So priorities are not absolute but rather relative. The second issue is that we should watch over what the speaker is good at. For instance, a Muslim preacher may not be good when it comes to speaking about something he considers a priority. So, should he be asked to speak or to be quiet?

• Is he required to try to know this?

He is required to try to know this but what if this priority is not within his specialization? Among the characteristics of the age we live in is that it is an age of specialization. So if the only thing a person is good at is teaching fiqh rulings, then do we tell him to speak about the problems young people face today? It is unfair to him and to the young people. Maybe he will embark boldly upon this issue and he will speak in a way that is tortuous and frightens the young people. Or he may feel that he is incapable and he will stay in his home and not let the people benefit from his knowledge in fiqh.

• Are priorities divided based on personal capabilities or based on necessity?

We need to observe both aspects of priorities: Those priorities related to the competence and specialization of the person who is speaking and the priorities related to the requirements of the reality we live in. I cannot find today any correct, precise feature from among the features of Islamic discourse which they do not need as a priority. Let me tell you something which may surprise you. A little over ten years ago we visited a valley in Yemen – not Shangri-La – we found that more than 80% of the inhabitants of this valley do not read the Fatiha [The first sura of the Holy Quran] correctly. So if this is the case, then is teaching these people how to recite the Fatiha and how to do ablution correctly a priority or not?

• Is the absence of the government what has led to this level of ignorance?

I am not the type of person who looks to incriminate others. Let us move on from the phase of looking for someone to blame for something which has already happened to a phase of searching for a solution for future situations. It is not a diplomatic answer, as some members of the media often describe my answers, but it is a practical one.
You want me to say, for instance, regarding the Southern districts of Yemen that the totalitarian rule did have a negative impact and that with respect to the North the continuous struggles of governments there had a negative effect as well. But is this it? Is it all about looking for someone to accuse, force the blame on him and that is the solution to the problem?

• Does not diagnosing the problem help us to select the best way to deal with it?

I agree with you but diagnosis should begin where the problem started and not who it came from. The nation has an obligation it must carry out as does the media. Do not tell me the media is the nation because we have entered an era where the media is no longer limited by and to one specific nation. Furthermore, there are long studies in this topic which you know more about than I do. Scholars have a responsibility as do businessmen, people who are wealthy, academicians and teachers.
Let us begin by posing the question in another way and instead of saying who is responsible for this problem, we should introduce a new way of confronting the problem. We should ask: What is my responsibility towards the problem? In the same way, the newspaper should ask itself what its responsibility is as should the preacher and ruler. This should be what we do instead of everybody sitting down with their arms crossed and relaxed blaming others saying they are the problem, the reason behind the problem and they are wrong. Then he thinks he has done his duty because he was frank, looked into the issue and dealt with it himself. This is because he spoke boldly. So he did his part and that was it. End of story.  
In the hadith where the prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, says: “The best Jihad is a word of truth before a despotic leader (or sultan).” He said a word of truth “before” and not “about.” There is a big difference between someone who flexes his muscles in public, whether it be in the mosque, the media or anywhere else, to show the people with bravery he highlights in a fierce criticism against the ruler, and someone who sits down next to the ruler and addresses him politely and respectfully. Like God said:  “…and speak to them a word to reach their very souls.”

• Is it not in accordance with what is more beneficial? Because if this friendly discourse has no effect on the ruler and is more effective with the people…

But we have tried/dealt with the people for many years. The parties linked to the opposition of the ruler took advantage of this. Some of them even governed for a while and they still did not fix anything but rather the problem of the ruler repeated itself and it did not bring us anything.  So instead of changing the people’s feelings of anger or displeasure with the present mistakes into a way through which others, new executioners, would arrive [to power], we should look at the problem from a different angle: Come and let us talk about our role.
A preacher came to Al-Ma’mun reproving him harshly, he might have been sincere in his desire to come closer to God but he lacked awareness, so Al-Ma’mun smiled at him and told him: “Take it easy. God had sent someone better than you to someone worse than me. He sent Harun and Musa to the Pharaoh and He told them [when they met Pharaoh to say]: “But speak to him mildly…”
This is prophetic methodology. So instead of wasting time with models far away from prophetic methodology, let us return to the latter. How did the prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, overcome tyrants with the truth? Did he do it with insults, cursing, vilification, instigation and provocation? Or did he do it with that which was better, with good exhortation or as God said: “…speak to them a word to reach their very souls.” Did he used to hurt and attack with name calling or did he did he convey how the people were? Which of the two were more present in his discourse? 
By the same token, we should understand that any ruler who has emerged from the people of any land did not arrive with a parachute from the sky. Rather, he has emerged as a result of the situation the people of that land are living. Many of our rulers, and I say this with all confidence and without any concern, are capable of doing a lot of good. Many of the difficulties and worries the people live today have [even] brought the most sincere of the elite to their side. The complaints by the people over the flattering of the ruler by the elite surrounding him have increased. They cannot see the good qualities present in their rulers who are not completely bad, rulers who have both good and bad qualities. So to what degree have we made the effort to extract the good within the ruler so it may grow and develop? How much effort have we put into this? Our liege-lords, Musa and Harun, peace be upon them both, spent forty years trying to win over the Pharaoh before God destroyed him. So what serious attempts have we made in which we have been minimally fair to the ruler?
The ruler has fallen between two problems. The first problem is the one of flatterer who not only is he is applauded for every single thing he does but he is shown and made to feel that he is always right. The second one is the one of the avenging opposition, the person who always criticizes and never praises anything good even if it came from the ruler. On the contrary, he accuses anyone who praises anything good in the ruler of being a hypocrite. We should not let ourselves get carried away with these reactions because the topic of discussion is the dilemmas we are facing today and finding solutions for them.  

• What is your opinion of elections as a mechanism for changing the ruler without the need for fifty years for us to reform him or for him to reform us?

Ask those who participated in elections. Were they successful?  

• Is there another idea for a mechanism to manage these general affairs?

I am not against elections as I am not a believer in that they are the only way or the best way to change things.

• With regards to the system of government?

Even with regards to the system of government. In the developed nations which hum to us about elections while praising them for many years, we should ask ourselves whether the winners of these elections are adherents of revival projects in the nation or just people with the economic means to finance electoral campaigns?!

• Do you have an idea how a system of government and rotation of authority should be?

No, I do not. I am not specialized in this issue and I have not read enough on the issue for me to be able to give you an answer. Furthermore, I do not see myself respecting what I previously said if I criticize something I am not specialized in. Ali Ibn Abu Talib when asked something he did not know would say: “I do not know.”

• What relation does religion have with politics? Where do they meet and where do they separate?

Religion touches everything, politics, economy, society, etc. It touches these disciplines within the framework of raising people during the performance of their mission on this Earth, which God, the Highest, left to them, and during their worship of God alone. However, religion separates from these aforementioned disciplines when a person tries to use it to further any project he adopts.

• Where do you agree and differ with your father, Prof Abdurrahman Al-Jifri and his role as leader of one of the political parties of Yemen?

Sir, I agree with my father - may God, the Highest, protect him – in the principles and ethics he has lived, still lives and continues to pay a price for being adherent to. These principles and ethics have influenced me since I was small before I began to study with the great scholars. I agree with him in his concern which carries him with sincerity towards his country and the Ummah. I differ with him, however, with regards to the role per se. I do not believe I have a role to play in politics, not that I am belittling it. It is just not my specialization.

• So you do not participate in politics not because you are looking down on it but rather because it is not your specialization.

Exactly, I do not participate in politics because it is not my specialization and not because I am belittling it. Some may differ with me that I do not accept that a person specialized in sacred sciences should change from an advisor or a guide in politics into a competitor in politics. A scholar when he becomes a competitor in the field of politics, religion and knowledge also become competitive elements. So instead of each political party gaining benefit from the guidance of religion so that politics may become nobler, religion transforms into a competitor within a political conflict. So a person, who was not an enemy of religion two days ago, declares war against religion today and the reason is that the person competing with him, carries out that competition in the name of religion. This is something I have seen with my own eyes in our arenas.  

• Some believe this to be a type of escape.

I respect their belief and I differ with them over it. They have the right to believe that as long as it is their right. We were just speaking about pluralism and I respect their opinion but I do not think it is a kind of escape.

• It is a constructive option built on a vision.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. Experience has shown that the participation of a number of scholars in the field of political competition has diminished the value of Islamic discourse in our society. It has come to the point where the imam if steps on the minbar and begins to speak, other say he is speaking for his party. So religion has become a part of a political party after it was the roof, the ceiling, the guide and the direction of everything.