Sharia, or Islamic law, is a contentious issue in Muslim-majority countries, and lately even in the West. The obvious reason is that some aspects of this legal tradition—apostasy and blasphemy laws, corporal punishments, or legal inequalities—conflict with modern standards of human rights and freedom.

But other aspects of Sharia, such as personal religious practices and communal norms, can also be practiced without any coercion in a liberal political order. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im has been the foremost theorist of this liberal perspective, showing how Sharia can be separated from the modern state and observed as a freely chosen way of life. An-Na’im presented this argument in a chapter of the recent volume, No Compulsion in Religion—No Exceptions: Islamic Arguments for Religious Freedom, edited by Cato’s Mustafa Akyol.

Join us to hear An-Na’im explain why and how Sharia can be separated from the state. Cato’s Matthew Cavedon, who has examined the question from an interfaith perspective, will provide comments.