Response to Salih Yucel from Muslims

Does Sharia law have to be implemented in Muslim societies and how much leeway is there in its interpretation?

If you look at the Hadiths (the oral traditions relating to the Prophet Muhammad [PBUH]), there are limits. Not everything is explained in detail because in every century human beings face new things, new rules, new cultures or some changes. So when we look at Sharia law the first source is the Qur’an, the second source is the Hadiths, the third is the Ijma (consensus) which is the unanimous decision among contemporary scholars and it’s very rare that there’s a unanimous decision among scholars. There are only a few. Probably 90 per cent of law is not unanimous among scholars.

The other thing is to ensure it is based on Ijtihad (critical thought). A scholar will make laws based on the Qur’an and Sunnah (actions of the Prophet Muhammad [PBUH]), but should use it also to solve problems in the society and the community, whether political, economic, or religious. So in history, they did it in this way. So definitely we cannot say as a Muslim anything against the Qur’an or the Sunnah of the prophet, but when we consider the other factors, Sharia law based on Ijtihad, it’s varied from century to century, from time to time. This is flexible because in the second century of Islam, the third century of Islam, fourth century of Islam, they made some changes which even contradicted each other. So with Sharia law we have to know what’s right for the society.

First of all to make Ijtihad, personal judgement, there are some criteria. The scholar must have freedom of expression. If the scholar is under pressure from the government, that scholar cannot make a law. The second, the scholar must have the religious sciences, the Qur’an, Arabic, the Hadiths, know the history of the similar issues and then this scholar or scholars will develop a law which is useful, beneficial for the social, religious, cultural, political, economic problems of the society.

Also that law, that Ijtihad should not contradict with the sense of the Qur’an or Hadiths. When we say Sharia law, well a scholar a 1,000 years ago made this fatwa, I have to implement this in Maldivian society, if it is solving the problem then yes, but if it is creating problems then we have to find another scholarly view to solve the problem. Because even the Hadiths of the Prophet (PBUH) make Islam easier not more difficult.

How should hudud punishments be applied and is there any flexibility?

There are three major areas where hudud is applied. One is stealing for example. It is the ruler’s responsibility, the community’s responsibility to find the causes of stealing. Why are people stealing? What’s the reason? If we can find out the reason and solve the problem and then if people steal still then of course, in Islam it says there are punishments. But there are certain conditions that Jurists should put. First they should ask the owner to forgive. If someone steals your money, the jurist will call you and ask you for forgiveness. If you say no, the second option is compensation. If you still reject, then the last option, the hudud should be applied.

However, if you look at history it’s very rare, it’s not applied much because of that mentality. How as a human being will you allow someone, because he or she steals some money, their hand to be cut off? And that’s why it seems harsh. However if you look at modern law, in Western society, the aim of the law is to prevent criminals from committing wrongdoing. So Islamic law also has a psychological effect as it tried to prevent people from committing these crimes. It’s the same sense as modern law.

But before we apply this law, we have a responsibility to change society. Otherwise, if we apply this, it might cause problems. We have to educate society, heart and mind on this issue. Punishment in the sight of Allah, in the sight of the Prophet is the last and last and last option. If we start at the first option without eradicating the other issues, then we will cause more problems.

Do you think Islam should play a role in politics?

If you look at history after the first four caliphs, politics harmed Islam every time. That’s why after that, for example, in Muslim states, including Ottomans, Selchuks, Andalus, the states in India in history, religious scholars usually stayed behind rather than run the country. They were advisors of the sultans or the kings but they were not in charge. A religious leader could try and be king or sultan but they didn’t. Instead, they tried to be sultans of the heart and of course when they are kings of the heart, people listened to them.

If I put religion on the frontline, I’m a human being, I will make mistakes. A wrong decision, what will happen? My opponents will use this against me, against religion. In contemporary society when you politicise religion, you are harming religion. However, what should happen is those who run society, they should have some ethics. They should engage in shura consultation, which should represent the whole of society. If someone wants to run Maldives, this person has to find the key people in society, even non-Muslims, to consult with. It could be businessmen, a woman, scientist, a doctor. It’s important for politicians from time to time if they are going to make a decision. Not just go to the people in favour of you. It’s the consultant’s role to talk about the other side of the coin as well.

For a politician, a ruler, it’s important to find these key persons and try to understand what they are thinking. If you look at different angles, you will be helping society. For religious leaders, instead of being a politician, it’s better to be an advisor to a politician and tell them what’s right or what’s wrong. Sometimes, the politician may not listen, but we cannot force them.

So the religious community should try to have a spiritual bond between different segments of society and should not exclude anyone. They shouldn’t not have a bond with one sector because they think they are non-practising. Because what does non-practicing mean? What is practicing? Is it just fasting? I know some people who are more generous than those who pray. I know some people who are more kind, maybe they are doing other obligations, for example, they are very kind to their parents but do not fast or pray. But another person who went to hajj is harsh to his parents. That’s why we cannot make personal judgements. The Qur’an says Allah knows who is the most pious. I cannot make the decision. However, there are those who pray, what they are doing is they are thanking god because of numerous blessings. Those who fast are sincerely thanking God. As a Muslim it’s our task. But it’s not our task to be judgemental.

For a politician, the simplicity of their life is important. They should be like an ordinary citizen. If he lives in a palace when people are homeless, he will not be able to affect the heart and mind. I should have a simple life. When you have a luxurious lifestyle, those who don’t, will blame you. Thirdly, they should be humble. Sometimes, some people may severely criticise. He should ignore this. Let them do it because this is what they did to the Prophet (PBUH). Rulers should be open-minded and accept all criticism whether against them or the state and try and have dialogue with every segment of society. Rulers must follow the rules of religion but not put religion on the frontline, not use Islam for their own political purposes, but they must follow the ethics.

In the Maldives, there’s the Religious Unity Act which gives a very strict interpretation of Islam that has to be followed. Now the argument is that this will prevent extremism, but at the same time it prevents any other interpretation of Islam. The Act dictates what is acceptable. What do you think about this?

Islam is not just a religion for today. We should go from the beginning of Islam to today and see how it’s been applied. Was it the same as the Maldives is doing today? If it’s the same, then no question, but I don’t think it’s the same. If you have very strict rules and don’t allow freedom of other religious views, what you end up doing is to exclude many people in your country and what will happen is that will bring political tension, religious tension that will cause maybe even conflicts and that has happened in the history of Islam. So if you say only my view is right, all others are wrong, this is not Islam. Because you are not the Prophet (PBUH). You are not the Prophet (PBUH) who received the Qur’an and you cannot say only this is the right path.

Even look at different interpretations between the companion s of the Prophet (PBUH). So if they had different interpretations, if they respected each other, if they tolerated different views, why shouldn’t we do it now? So we have to go from the past and come to today. Our responsibility is not to make religion hated by others. Our responsibility is to bring people towards the beauty of religion. So it’s important to think about how this is affecting heart and mind. Are people running away from religion or is this decision bringing people to the religion? If these rules are bringing people to religion then I would say yes, but if it’s making people hate the religion, those applying it have to think twice.

The aim is to make people love Allah, to make people love the Prophet (PBUH), to make people love the Qur’an, to make people love their neighbour, to make people love each other, to bring unity. This is the core of religion and we cannot compromise this. But if my fatwa is bringing unity or disrupting social cohesion, making people hate Islam, I think I’ll be accountable for that in this world and in the hereafter.

The Maldives is a 100% Muslim country. Under the constitution, if you’re not a Muslim, you’re not a citizen. What do you think the dangers of imposing Islam are and also not allowing non-Muslims to practice their faiths?

There are many examples in history of non-Muslims practising their religion. If you look at the Medina Charter, which for Muslims is the first constitution, in that charter, it is clear that there were Jewish people living in Medina and they were allowed to practice their religion. But after those Jewish groups worked against Muslims and broke the treaty, they were expelled. So yes, whoever lives in a country they must respect the law.

However, when it comes to religious freedom that happened during the Umayyad times and the Abbasi times, in Andalus, in Ottoman, Selchuks. When you restrict them from practising their religions what will happen is the Muslims in non-Muslim countries will also not be allowed to practice. It will happen in reverse. When we make a decision we shouldn’t think just for a tiny society, we have to have a big picture. If I do something here, will it harm the Muslims living overseas? Is it going to give a good image of Islam or not?

In history, non-Muslims had rights to practice their religion. They had their own courts. They built their churches and they practiced their religion. Muslims gave that freedom and usually what happened when they saw the beauty of Islam was most of them converted. If you impose something by force, definitely, they will react in the opposite way. Even Western scholars and Muslim scholars say that one reason Islam spread so quickly was because they gave freedom to non-Muslims to practice their religion. I respect your constitution, however, look at history and the implementation was not like that.

In Islam, it is considered that when a girl reaches puberty she is of a marriageable age. Can you explain this with reference to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)?



Let’s first look at what marriage is, from the Islamic point of view and the Western point of view. What we see in the West, after the age of 10, 11, 12, will have a relationship with the opposite sex. It’s been practiced in every Western society. So the concept of marriage, what we understand in the Muslim society and the Western society, is not the same. In the Muslim society, marriage is not just signing a contract. It’s more than this. There are 1,000 wisdoms of marriage. One is just the sexual relationship, the third to have children, etc. But there are social implications, spiritual implications, economic implications, moral implications. Of course, first of all, a girl, whatever her age is, she has rights. Whether to accept or reject. However, you can say, at 10 years old a girl isn’t mature enough to make a decision. I agree with you.

However, if you look at practice and mostly in the past, in the Muslim countries, it’s over 15, 16. It’s not at nine or ten. It’s very rare. In today’s society because of education and because girls go to school, have to have a skilled job and learn about Islam. In many Muslim countries girls marry at the age of 18, 20, 25. That’s because according to Muslim scholars if someone can control himself or herself, the marriage is not an obligation, it’s Sunnah, the tradition of the Prophet (PBUH). If this person cannot control himself or herself and this person is going to commit what we call haram (forbidden in Islam) activities, then this person is obliged to get married.

Even marriage sometimes is disliked by God. When I get married if I’m not going to provide sustenance for my wife, then the Prophet (PBUH) says, don’t get married. There are different views about the age of marriage and different practices. In practice, most Muslims wouldn’t let girls get married at the age of nine. It is there, yes. This is because saving community is important. Let’s say in the Western society, they have a relationship after puberty and on the one hand how it’s causing long-term damage to the society. But Islam gives a solution. If you live in a society where people can’t control themselves, the best way is let them get married. But of course they have to be under the supervision of their parents, because they are of a young age. They can act emotionally. They need a lot of counseling from their family, friends. Otherwise, if you force people to marry at a young age, it will cause harm to their society.

What about the example of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)?

I think recently and in the past the Western scholars said the Prophet (PBUH) married Aisha at the age of nine. First of all, let’s go to that society. The Prophet (PBUH) had opponents definitely; those who disliked the Prophet (PBUH), those who tried to kill the Prophet (PBUH). If it was wrong, what would have been the reaction of his opponents? Definitely they would have criticised him severely and they would have said, look, the Prophet (PBUH) is marrying a nine-year-old girl. Even the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) wouldn’t have accept it.



The Prophet (PBUH) got married at the age of 25. He was a very handsome person and many girls in the city wanted to get marry to him. But he married Khadeeja and she was 45 years old; 15 years older than the Prophet (PBUH). The Prophet (PBUH) was her third husband and the Prophet (PBUH) never married until she died. Then he was single for one and a half years and then he got married to Aisha.

So what’s the reason for this? Imagine how people in an illiterate society 1,400 years ago would have known their ages? Because Aisha was very skinny and she looked very young. If the Prophet (PBUH) did something wrong in his society, everyone around him, including his companions would have said. They would have left him. Another reason is because as you know, young people learn very quickly. We are learning almost one-third of the religion from Aisha. This is important. He had other wives as well but none of them reported Hadiths or about the life of the Prophet (PBUH) as much as she did because she was young and was able to memorise whatever the Prophet (PBUH) said to her. And many companions later became her students. Muslims learnt a lot from her. So the one purpose of the marriage was not for self-desire but because half of the humankind is female and there are some certain issues, no one could ask the Prophet (PBUH). Only his wife could ask and learn and practice.

The other thing is some history books mention that Aisha was between 15 and 18 years old. And this is definite. Because what we know is if she’s nine years old and he got married at 54, when the Prophet (PBUH) died, Aisha would be 15 years old. Aisha was a commander of an army. Can a 15-year-old girl go and become a commander of an army surrounded by people such as Abdullah Bin Zubair around her? That’s why that accusation is inaccurate. In history books, it says that she was 9, 13, 15, 18, even 24. Five different narrations. However, the majority of scholars will take between age 15 and 18.

The Prophet (PBUH) got married many times and he’s also criticised by Western scholars for polygamy. But we have to ask what was the purpose of polygamy? Why did the Prophet (PBUH) practice this? He wanted unite the community because there were different tribes. Before, the Arabs never had unity. It wasn’t for sexual desires.

Considering Aisha was a leader, why is it unacceptable in some Muslim countries to have women in many high positions such as judges, imams or heads of state?

First of all there is no imamhood in Islam. There’s no ordination. To be an imam is not a right, it is a burden. All Muslim scholars accept that. Why don’t we have female imams? Actually, a woman can lead women. But as you know, our way of praying involves bowing down, prostrating. Would you feel comfortable bowing down in front of a congregation? Definitely, a Muslim woman would not.

Second, if you look at Abu Hanifa, in the second century, he gave a fatwa saying there must be female judges and the jurists gave a fatwa that in Muslim communities, it’s an obligation, must have female doctors, female nurses, female teachers, must.

In terms of ruling the country, women play a great role. Even if they weren’t sultan or king, they were the person behind the king. Head of state, yes, there’s a Hadith against that. No-one can deny that. To be head of state is a burden, it’s not a right. But we have had female heads of state in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Turkey. Sometimes Americans ask me, why don’t you accept women to become head of state? And I say to them well the most democratic country is the United States and you haven’t had a female president so far.

I have a text message from someone who knew I was coming to meet you: “The whole country is in denial about the extremism problem here, similar to when the country was in denial about the drug problem. What does he think? I hope he answers without being politically correct.”

How should I answer? Like a diplomat? An academic? A religious leader? Or an ordinary citizen? Why is extremism happening? First of all, we have to look at the causes.

What kind of Islam have you experienced and seen in the Maldives?

I felt that. It’s some kind of extremism. Not just in the Maldives. Anywhere. If you go to the United States, you’ll see many Christian groups that totally reject all other Christian groups. But what is extremism? What is not? What is causing them to become extremists? What is the reason? I don’t know in detail, but what I know is the political condition of the world is fuelling extremism; injustice against Muslims in the world. If you look at it, there’s almost no dignity for Muslims. For example, in Palestine, the suicide attacks.

But you should see the other side of the coin. They don’t have aircrafts, they don’t have tanks, they don’t have artillery, they don’t have nuclear weapons, they don’t have even the basic weapons to defend themselves with and no-one is helping them. Just put yourself in their shoes, 55, 60 years, your country is under occupation. Every day or every month, you’re being bombed, you have no rights, you cannot leave the city, if you want to leave you have to pass security checks. Sometimes you can’t even take people to the hospital. With that mentality, can you accept that these people should be tolerant and kinder? They will be extremists? No alternative.

So for this society, what is fuelling it? What are the reasons? If I look at the general picture, probably some people focus on one scholar and neglect the other scholars’ views. They are seeking just one scholar, thinking he’s the only right one and all others are wrong and they think that one scholar’s view with satisfy them. We must be open-minded about other scholars’ views as well.

The third, I think, if there are economical and social problems, people try to solve these, right or wrong. If as a government, you do not create an atmosphere to solve what’s wrong people will become extremists in religion.

Also the lack of dialogue, I think. Muslims must promote dialogue within ourselves, because we don’t know each other. Who are these extremists? What’s their mentality? Did we sit and talk to them? Did we give them alternatives? I think this is important. If they are only following one scholar, we can say, look there are other scholars too. And that will lead to a peaceful society. However, if you try to oppress extremists, they will become even more extreme and that will affect the different segments of society and social cohesion. I would talk to extremists and maybe on some issues, we would disagree. But that’s no problem. First of all, we are all humans, we are Muslims, we are living in this country. In a small tiny country, we have to find common ground.

We have to go sit with them, talk to them. We shouldn’t fear them and they shouldn’t fear us. I don’t fear that they will convert me to their ideas. No. I am confident with my own ideas. If I am confident as a Muslim, I can discuss Islam with 400 priests or reverends, even if they try and convert me. I am 100% confident that they cannot. Because I trust my religion, I trust my faith. I don’t mind if they ask any questions. I don’t mind if they criticise me, criticise Islam. I think that will bring strength to Islam. So I felt that in this society, but how can we solve this, I think dialogue is the key issue. Dialogue with our opponents to find something common for this society and not just have a narrow-minded approach. This hasn’t worked in history, in Muslim societies and it’s not going to work in this society as well. But with an open-minded approach, I think everybody will win.