is an important scholar of Islam. He is the rector and a professor of Quranic sciences at the School of Islamic and Social Sciences at Leesburg, Virginia. He is author of numerous publications, some of which are: Source Methodology in Islamic Jurisprudence, Outlines of a Cultural Strategy, The Quran and the Sunnah: Time-Space Factor, Ijtihad, and Ethics of Disagreement.
	Sheikh Taha Jabir

Note: The following transcription should be treated as gender neutral. Sheikh Taha's use of examples to illustrate his point is not specifically meant for any particular gender. The pronoun 'he' has been used in case of a person, not implying any special pertinence to the masculine gender.

Ejaz (E): What is the distinction between Public and Private life? How important is it to know this distinction? What, in your opinion, are the thresholds of public and private life, i.e., where does the one stop and the other one starts?
Sheikh Taha (ST): Islam considered private life and the main part of the human rights. In our traditional fiqh or jurisprudence we call it haq-ul-khususiya (the right of privacy). We have number of verses of Quran indicating that right and give us an idea that we should respect and protect that right for everyone. We should consider that verse as the main principle of the right of privacy. It tells us that if there is someone regarding whom we have any 'shak' (doubt or suspicion), we should refrain ourselves from investigating him based on that shak, because that is considered as infringement upon that person's right to privacy. Now, if you are certain that something is wrong which merits investigation, only then you may start an investigation.
We have no rights to initiate inquiry based just on suspicion, feeling or a hunch. Any government official or a social entity has no right to investigate anyone based on suspicion. Once that entity (individual or an organization) is certain of the subject's guilt, only then you may interrogate him. Otherwise, it is against the human rights.
E: So, you are saying that the state has no justification to investigate a person short of tangible evidence, just because someone is a suspect ?
ST: Right. Even if you are somewhat sure due to inference against someone's improper behavior, you have no right to 'develop' information that would make your hunch to become evidence. You have to give that person the benefit of doubt which becomes his right to privacy.
Here it would be appropriate to narrate a story from the life of the second Caliph, Umar ibn-al Khatab(RAU). Habitually, he used to patrol his streets sometime at night to ensure the safety of his citizens. One night during his 'neighborhood watch', he came across a house from where he heard someone sing a song. That caught his attention. At a late hour of the night, he became suspicious as to what might be going on over there and he peeped in that house. He saw that there was a man who was drinking something and he was with a woman. It seemed as if he was drinking wine and enjoying company of a woman who may or may not have been his wife. Upon that sight, Umar RAU said: "O enemy of Allah, you were thinking that no one would see what you are doing, but I see you!" That person replied: "ya Amir-al-Momineen, even if I concede to you that I am drinking wine (for which you have no proof) I did one mistake, but you made three mistakes". "How so?" questioned Umar. The man replied: "God said Wa la tajususo (and don't investigate), but you did tajusus. Secondly, If you had to visit me you should have come from the front door and thirdly, you can only see in my house with my permission after proper greeting (salam). Without my permission you do not have a right to peep in." Umar realized his mistake and left the man alone.
Once, someone came to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and said that he saw someone committing adultery and "I am here to give shahdah (witness)". Prophet replied, "Why didn't you cover him with your cloak or something, to hide what he was doing and leave him alone?"
If we give everyone the right to investigate each other behind each other, it leads to annihilation of society. People will be weary of each other, hate each other, be suspicious to each other to the point that the social trust will erode and the society will break down.
E: Most of these examples that you used, are from an interpersonal level. We also know that at times of war Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) sent people to do 'tajasus' or spying against the enemy. So at the level of the state, we need tajasus. Especially in the modern world we need tajasus, don't we? There are foreign intelligence organizations in states and there are also domestic agencies, such as FBI in the US, which pro-actively spy on their own citizens to counter any security threat before it emerges. What do you think about the role of such organizations in the society?
ST: The state should trust the citizens and the citizens should trust the state. If there is any mistrust between the society and the state (or the Caliph, Amir, Sultan, prime minister, regardless of the form of that state), something is seriously wrong. If the people dislike head of the state, he has no right to stay in the office. If the organizations in power are proactively searching for the 'potential' enemy of the regime or the state, that means there is already something wrong and the government or the state should at that time consider the devolution of power. Islam gives no right to the state to go against its own citizens and interrogate them short of solid evidence.
E: This argument strikes at the heart of the policies of surveillance and proactive espionage that almost all the modern states engage in. So all that would amount to deviation from Islamic norms and practices?
ST: That's right.
E: So, how should the citizens be protected from espionage?
ST: That is a good question. As far as what a just state should do, they should refrain from unnecessarily spying on its citizens. When it comes to foreigners, they can be asked questions at the time of application for visa, but not harassed at, and beyond the port of entry. However opposite is the norm with most modern states today.
I have another story for you about Umar (RAU) that demonstrates this point: Umar met his assassin Abu Lu'lu'a, only three days before he killed him. That man indicated through the threatening tone of his speech that his intentions toward Umar were not good. Umar had all the reasons to prosecute him based on his premonition. Even his companions told him that he should keep an eye on him and consider arresting him. But Umar decided to give him the benefit of doubt and said that Allah SWT prevented us from prosecuting anyone without evidence. "I shall not touch him."
Allah SWT said that during your infringement upon individual rights if you become liable of someone's death, it is like killing the whole of humanity because that individual symbolizes the entire humanity.
E: Many Muslims in the Islamic world are living under oppressive regimes, some are living as diaspora in Non-Muslims lands. The public space is laid out in a certain way that can at times obstruct the smooth flow of Islamic lifestyle. Modern life often blurs the important distinction of public and private realms and at times even reverses the two. How can the Muslims re-organize their private and public spaces to suit the needs of their lifestyles?
ST: In the Muslim world, they have to shun ignorance along with the repressive regimes to achieve the proper Islamic place for what is public and what is private. As far as the life of a Muslim in a Western/modern state is concerned, I see no major conflict for that Muslim, if he can organize his life better. Western societies are based on a secular paradigm and Islamic societies on a religious one. If being secular in these societies means being anti-religion (esp. Islam), as in the case of France or the state of Turkey, it becomes difficult indeed. However, if their secular variant is 'respect for all religions' and their adherent's right to practice it in the public environment, as evident more or less in the case of USA, it becomes quite possible to live an Islamic life without much hindrance.
E: What do you think about the re-organization of the public space and its impact on social life, especially in the case of Muslim women? Do you think that it poses a difficult challenge to the lifestyle of Muslims?
ST: I think that we should be not afraid to go out and socialize with the non-Muslim societies at all. We don't have to drink alcohol at their parties, dance and frolic around, but we should mingle with them in an effort to understand their culture, their values and norms. Muslims do not understand the West and such occasions can be our chance to develop a deeper understanding of their culture, history and civilization. I have seen some people in the Muslim communities in the West who have been out here for decades and who cannot speak the local language. They have absolutely no clue to the ethos of these people. We should not dismiss the Western societies readily as un-Islamic and therefore not worth spending time with.
The West knows us through anthropology and thorough Orientalist scholars, who studied us and know us through their work. We don't have any specialists who know the West in the same sense or even those who feel the need for a crop of such specialists. I do not mean to reverse the heinous Orientalist project, but we have to be aware of the need to have scholars who genuinely understand contemporary Western civilization. In our schools we just know them as our enemies who occupied our countries, killed our people, stole our resources, etc. When we come here we bring that attitude. Islam tells us differently. It says that you [Muslims] are witnesses for the humanity. You are balanced people and you have no right to be absent. Muslim world for quite sometime has been intellectually absent. To people who came before the Muslims, God said, 'Go to the Holy Land', but to Muslims He said: "Go to the whole world". The whole earth is your mosque. It's a place for us to know and pray. But before you go out to the world, it is equally important to know what's public and what's private.

Ejaz Akram is the Editor for the political section of the Global Examiner. He is also working on a Ph.D. in International Relations at the Catholic University of America, Washington DC . For feedback, e-mail editor at ejaz@islam-online.net