Tariq Ramadan – Islamic Ethics How we Know Right and Wrong #3A
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
So the good news
is that I I'm going to speak less.
That's what he was saying. And This is
why he added all these titles to make
it nice.
This is,
strategic diplomacy.
Anyway, so yes, I think it's as I
told you, tomorrow it will be even more
time for
discussion
and exchange on your own experiences in different
fields, as you saw the field mentioned.
What I want is now to go from
the state of affairs, what we were talking
about when it comes to dealing with ethics.
And,
to ask ourselves,
you want me to?
No.
I I don't think it's good.
I'm completely on
that. That's fine with me, but I I
think that they have half my face. That's
you want me to move?
Okay.
So, by the way, I
convey my salaam to the people who are
not here and following us on,
on Internet.
And I I really want to thank you
because I didn't say it, but having this
at hand, it's it's important. I think it's
well done with the program, with the book,
and I think you can have
a private use of all that. I repeat.
So,
what I was saying is that the state
of affairs talking about the different fields
and asking a question.
In fact,
when we deal with these
Islamic Sciences,
the first thing that we see here is
that there are 2 things.
Through history,
we had
categorization
of Islamic Sciences
and
with history we have
a hierarchy
among the Islamic Sciences.
The question is:
The crisis are the problems
that we are talking about
today,
which is,
the divide
or the divorce
of first,
understanding
the principles
as being values
and trying to connect
the principles
as values
with their
translations
as
law,
understood as means,
hakam,
and even thinking about
Fatawa, legal opinions,
in the light of the,
objectives
and Makassid
or the higher objectives.
All this together is:
how do we reconnect? How could we reconcile?
Or shall we
reconcile?
There is something here that,
it's a reality. If you look at
I wrote a book in French, it's not
going to be published in English because
the scholar with whom I did the book
was is not known in the UK. He's
a very high profile
intellectual in France.
And in
Spanish English
Spanish
speaking
areas is Edgar Morin.
He's the one who promoted
something which is a reference in the work
of
the philosophy of complexity.
And in his work,
when he's talking about
complexity, he's saying something that one of the
main crises
in the West when it comes to knowledge
is the fragmentation of knowledge.
In fact,
fragmentation of knowledge is what we have today
is people
very specialized
in their area of study, very much so.
But at the end, they are so much
specialized in a very specific area that in
the field
there is not a clear
goal,
there is not a clear
end. What do we want to achieve?
And in fact,
you can today
work in specific areas in medical sciences, for
example,
in all the sciences. And at the end,
this fragmentation
of knowledge
is
undermining the very essence of questioning the goal
of science.
If you come now to what I was
saying this morning:
Muslims
in all our institutions are facing exactly the
same fragmentation
of knowledge.
So you have people very, very much and
not fragmentation
of knowledge between the other knowledges
outside the realm of what I'm talking about
here. It's within
Islamic sciences
you have
something which is fragmented
approaches
towards the very essence of what the Islamic
message is.
So you have the main science,
FIRQ,
where we are dealing with the rules and
everything,
which in fact is in a way disconnected
from
el arqueda, as something which is another science,
disconnected from etasawuf,
or disconnected
from even,
Eilmel Aghlaq or Eilmel Kalan, to the point
that you go to many of our institutions
today, there are some of
these disciplines
that are not even taught.
We don't care.
So not only
there is fragmentation,
but what could help us to come to
a common agreement?
Now,
what is said among Muslims,
very often
and which is not understood,
in which way are you going to
unite, or you can
unite,
the Muslims?
Wherever you go today, Muslim majority countries
or in the West or
in
Asia or in Africa.
One of the main crises that we are
facing is divisions within.
And we keep on repeating: So,
come back
to hold to
wa'atasimu
bi hablillah. Hablillah here is the rope of
Allah, God's rope it's in fact the Koran.
This is the way it was understood by
the scholars. Come back to the Koran. The
Koran is
the uni the
the unifying
source
to which you have to come back in
order to have this unity.
We have to be very cautious with this,
and we have to understand
that,
in fact, coming back to the Koran is
coming back to the Koran as being the
source of truth.
Okay? It's just the truth is there.
But you are not going to unify the
the the the the Muslims only by saying
the Quran is our common source, so let
us come back to the Quran. Why?
Because by definition,
common truth.
What should be managed
is the accepted diversity among interpretations.
So that's a very important point, which means
never ever
the unity
could be reduced to uniformity
in our
understanding. Why?
Because the unity based on truth
should be accepting the diversity of interpretations of
the scriptural sources.
Our problem
is with this diversity of thoughts and understanding
and there is an accepted diversity
and there are unacceptable
interpretations.
So also we have to be clear on
this.
If, for example, you say, you can be,
you will see in the book that is
going to be published, I'm I'm I'm I'm,
introducing the readers to the three levels of
diversity: what are the schools of thought,
the schools of law, and the trends. There
are different levels.
But when it comes to these
levels of diversity
so you can be a reformist, a traditionalist,
a literalist,
a mystic,
whatever.
So we have a diversity. There are some
there are things that are clear that there
is
an accepted diversity.
Now if you take the Koran, if you
take the scriptural sources,
and you end up saying something which is
against the message of, for example,
O'Koharm are doing today, you have to say
that there is a limit for this accepted
diversity. This is unacceptable.
And that you have to come with your
arguments by showing that this is completely against
the overall message. It's distorting
some verses in order to promote a message
which is not the essential message. So there
is an accepted diversity.
Having said that, there is an accepted diversity.
Is there a way
to
manage
this diversity
in order to make it
a quality and not a weakness.
If you don't manage diversity,
we end up with divisions and fragmentation,
which is exactly what is happening now.
So what we have at the level of
the community, at the grassroots level, saying: You
know what? Wherever you go, you deal with
Muslims,
it's just
a mess.
There are as many opinions as Muslims,
no way of being. And we all, all
complain about divisions with it,
to the point that it's a self fulfilling
prophecy.
We are divided, and we keep on talking
about divided divisions, and then we we are
really divided, and there is no way of,
coming together
at different levels, by the way, in the
way we deal with the Quran and the
Sunnah, in the way we deal with our
culture's origin, in the way we deal even
between Sinai and Shia. And this is one
of the great
challenges of our time within.
Now, we have to think about
what I'm talking about here when it comes
to,
in
fact,
if you accept that there is a common
truth, la ilaha illallah, which is the source,
the tawheed,
the oneness of God.
And then the the oneness of God is
based also on the revelation, the revelation that
we have in
is coming after
Alama Al Quran and then Ir Rahman,
the tawhid,
and then straightaway the book.
The book has coming from the truth and
getting the truth. We accept this. On this
we agree.
Just after this, we're not going to agree.
Straight after this, the truth is that there
are many interpretations.
So from where are we going to try
to find a way of
reconciling?
If now you come with the 3 different
sciences
that we
have. You have,
philosophy,
asking and questioning the sources.
In the way they are questioning the sources
and in the way they are questioning is
it coming from rationality, is it coming from
the book, from where is it or from
traditions and cultures?
They are not going to agree
on issues
when it comes to deal with FERC, because
FERC is not dealing with the same. So
by definition here, you have
2 knowledges
that have no
as to the substance, and you know this:
a science
is defined by the object of study, and
the methodology
is
brought about through the object itself. Okay? If
you go to biology,
the object is,
is defining
your topic, and the methodology is coming from
the object itself. The same for medicine and
everything. So the object is defining 2 things.
It's the frame and the methodology. The methodology
is not coming from you, the subject is
coming from the object.
So for example, you read the Koran, everything
which has to do with the Koran and
the methodology is coming from the Koran grammar,
semantic,
morphology it's the text that is imposing onto
you its own methodology.
Now you can structure the methodology,
but the object is imposing you a way
of dealing with it. Do you agree on
that?
Having said that, when you come with
different sciences, and we see here that there
is a problem, this divide between the sciences
is because they have different objects.
Is there a way where we can find
common ground or overlapping,
dimensions between the sciences, in order to reconcile
the sciences.
And this is where
the ethical question is essential.
When you look at the sciences,
this is talking about the source, this is
talking about the means, and this is talking
about the objectives.
In
fact, when you come with the ethical question,
this is
the
field
which is everywhere,
and it could help you to get a
diversity of sciences
with common
goals.
So in fact,
the methodology is the opposite of what we
were saying.
Many are saying, come back to the Koran
to unite.
I'm suggesting
go to the goals, to reconcile.
The goals,
not the
because the source
is, by definition, open for interpretations.
But through these interpretations,
what should be extracted
are the common goals that we are trying
to achieve. So, for example,
whatever
is you may disagree on the priorities,
but there are common
ethical
goals on which we are going to agree.
So for example, you say, you know what,
as a Muslim
my goal
is
to
acknowledge
and to follow
what God, what Allah is giving me and
asking me to do. So my source,
the source of my way of dealing with
my ethics, it's him
at the same time,
and this is part of every tradition.
My intellect, it's part also of,
the the the way I'm producing morality, or
at least I can identify,
in the light of the text,
morality around me, which is
el maruf.
When you say this,
you can see that in all the traditions,
the way you deal with
ethics,
dealing with the scriptural sources,
could be reconciling
the different trends and the different, even, school
of law or school of thought.
It's by starting
by the goals that you can find the
common ground at the source.
It's not by starting by the source because
the source in itself is dividing it's a
text.
So I can sit with the salafi:
the very way
he or I
am reading the scriptural source is not going
to be the same. So the starting point
of division is the way you read.
When did it happen between Ahl
al Sunnah?
Ahl al
Hadith, sorry, when they went,
like to salvienna,
Salat in one verse,
on one hadith is Salat El Duhr,
in the other is Salat El El As
in Bani Khareza.
And some understood it's the same text.
They say, oh, we don't have to pray
before arriving there. The other group said, no,
he said, hurry up to be there before
Salah.
It's the same text.
The point was that the prophet
accepted the 2 interpretations
based on what?
The text was open for interpretation
and a sincere way of reading the text.
But there was a division. They went they
didn't even pray together,
to the point that they didn't pray together.
So here,
the methodology
and this is where ethics and it's not
understood by many of the Foucah
ethics could be reconciling the sciences
by saying, when it comes to the source,
question the goals. What do you want to
achieve? And you will see that in many
trends,
we agree on the fact that relying on
God, coming back to the sources, is in
fact for us to try to achieve
these goals that are ethical goals.
And it's the same
with,
with ethics, for example,
with the legal framework. When it comes to
the legal framework,
what is the main question to the scholars
is not
what is the priority field,
because of course if you are in a
specific field you would think that this is
the priority field. It's what do you want
to achieve?
So So, in fact, what is the meaning
of your means? What is the meaning of
your science?
And it comes to what? It comes to
the final goal, and the final goal is
always ethical from an Islamic perspective, always.
Even the folkorans would say it's to
obey the rule in order to be consistent
with the ethical framework because the 2 are
going together.
What I'm saying here into the methodology
is:
the same way that you are seeing now
the deep crisis that you have in the
West as to the fragmentation of knowledge,
and the intuition coming from scholars who have
nothing to do with Islam, is saying, in
fact, the way we have to question sciences
is not about their methodologies,
but about their goal,
which is exactly the same in schools.
The point is,
if you are facing today a crisis in
the educational system,
it's not only structural.
The true question is: what do you want
to achieve? Do you want to achieve free
citizens
or
people who are serving an economic system being
efficient in the job market? Do you want
efficient
elements in the job market or free independent
citizens? In fact, you are questioning the goal.
If you don't question the goal, you play
with the structure. So you have reforms, but
at the end it doesn't change anything.
It's exactly what we are doing in Islam.
We are questioning the structures
and not questioning the goal. And in fact,
if you come to the goals this is
what I'm saying
you are questioning the very ethical meaning of
the whole message.
So the methodology here is also to question
the scholars, the Foucahas.
And this is what we have been doing.
And those who are helping us to do
this, it's also people coming from outside the
realm of,
of
the Islamic sciences.
The same, for example, when it comes to:
you will never,
never find a 'alem, a fari'.
You will never find a philosopher
disagreeing with you when you go and you
say: 'At the end of the day,
your relationship to God, your relationship to Allah,
it's for what? What are you trying to
achieve?'
I'm not asking about
the source. I'm asking about the goal. What
do you want to achieve?
You want to purify the self?
You agree on that?
All what I'm saying, you know, when I
go like this and say, you know what,
the very essence of Islam is changing yourself,
changing the world.'
Have you heard in
my statement here that everything that I'm saying
is about the goal?
Changing the self, changing the world.
And when I go, and wherever I go,
I can speak to Shia, I can speak
to Sunni, I can speak to Salafi, I
can speak to traditionalists. On this, we agree:
that there are fundamental
goals,
and these goals, in fact, are based on
an ethical take. So my
question here is: instead of being obsessed with
the rules,
or obsessed with
a methodology of purification,
let us try to change the approach and
say:
okay, there is an accepted diversity. I have
no problem with the Sufi trend. I have
no problem with the furqah. I have no
problem with the philosopher. But there is one
thing that we cannot miss:
what is our common goal?
What is our common ethical goal?
Because at the end, if the prophet said
in Namaburay pulleyotamme mamekarem al akhlaar, the noble
character, he is telling us: my message is
by the goal,
not by the means and not by the
source and not by this philosophy that you
may have that is distorting the whole message.
So how do we reconcile all this?
And I can tell you, on practical terms,
in our
way of dealing with this when it comes
to sciences,
it's the power of the ethical question, but
not and this is where it has to
be clear
not in the way
you have the ethical questions put in the
West today. I have been involved in this
field for 20 years in so many committees.
While you come, you sit,
you speak about ethics,
and in fact nothing is going to happen.
You are just giving some opinions about the
ethical, could we do this or not, for
example, when it comes to,
some
bioethical questions, for example,
And you see that this is just
a kind of,
justification to carry on.
At the end, cloning, for example. Are we
against are we for,
therapeutic
cloning,
or cloning of human beings, and all this
type of discussion.
And you
feel when you are in this committee that
it's not going to have any impact
on the scientific field.
And to tell you the truth, today if
you look at
what is happening with our
FERC committees,
it's exactly the same. Some are talking for
example, many of you, you live in Europe,
you have, for example, the European Council for
eFatois and Research you have so many other
institutions working about fatawa
in Europe that are not even considered. They
are not even you don't even know what
they are saying.
So there is a gap between the production
of the legal framework and the real life.
Or if you have one authority who is
going to come with a very close framework.
My question here is,
In fact,
we need to come to the essential
ethical question
related to the goals.
And if you do this, you understand
that we cannot carry
on having these sciences the way they are
without reconciling
these sciences with the very meaning of a
philosophy
of law,
an epistemology
which is a theory of knowledge,
and then
the deep understanding of what spirituality
means in science.
You know the intuition of Mohammed Iqbal when
he was dealing with politics? The first time
I read this I didn't even understand what
he was I thought he was dreaming,
when he was saying spiritual democracy.
Spiritual democracy.
Let's say somebody who is it could be
a Sufi new thing.
But this is
disconnection is critical.
It's in fact
be careful
in the way you are a citizen, in
the way you are involved,
don't only put
spirituality in the way you look at yourself,
but the way you commit yourself to the
political field, which is a democracy
where the spiritual dimension
is part of the collective structure.
You might agree or not, but at least
there is a hint here that there is
a goal in the structure which is deeper
than the structure itself.
And we now know this.
Every one of you you know, many Muslims
they don't even
they are
being critical towards democracy. It's as if now
it's the final political structure.
That's fine.
I'm not going to celebrate democracy
in a way which is completely simplistic. I
know how much we are losing rights in
our democracies today.
When I am told, for example, you know
what, we have to separate
religion and,
power, which I don't have a problem with
this. I wrote 20 years ago that we
don't have a problem with separating authority.
But when people are saying, we don't want
religion at all, in the public sphere, say,
yes, but what about, for example, the economic
power and the economic power which is, in
fact directing the political system to the point
that you have some leaders saying, in fact,
we don't control the country. So we end
up having
structural democracy
without the the the substance of a real
political
and open
society.
And you know this. You know that you
can vote, but at the end,
how
latitude
is left to a political leader to do
his political
program if he has not the support of
transnational cooperation and the economic will,
which once again, when all the people were
praising the Arab the Arab Spring,
I wrote the book saying,
you don't get it. It has nothing to
do with politics. It has to do with
economic factors, and the new,
actors within the region are threatening
the old order. So this is what it
is about. It has nothing to do with
politics.
If we were serious about democracy, we would
have started
with some Gulf states.
But that's not the point. The point is
restructuring the whole region for economic
reasons.
And what I'm saying here, and all this
discussion is bringing back to the discussion here,
is to say,
when it comes to all these sciences here
and I'm talking here first about
what we call Islamic Sciences. And once again,
I keep on asking the question. You might
answer this question:
What is Islamic in Islamic sciences? If it's
not only the object that we are studying,
the Koran, the Sunnah, and other fields. If
this is what makes
a science Islamic is the object
so I'm sorry, nature is as Islamic as
the Koran because it's a revealed book it's
Il Kitab al Manchur. So why don't we
talk about
Islamic environment, Talon studies?
We can put Islam everywhere,
or it might be that we have to
remove it from everywhere,
or what? How are we going to call
these
specific knowledges?
So
now with
this discussion, what I want you to understand
is
by questioning
the ethical
values or the ethical goals,
this is where we
are able
to find
a way of reconciling
the different sciences
the sources, the means and
the goals.
Which means, in fact,
to question
in which way, in ethical terms,
spirituality
should be
part of
our active presence within the society
or within even the very understanding of the
legal framework.
Instead of having more spirituality
only in our organizations, we might need more
spirituality in our legal framework.
And instead of having only
a legal framework, which is more spiritual, we
might need more philosophy
in the legal
framework as well. So the reconciliation
of what I said, the theory of knowledge
in the name of
the source
questioning the goals, the ethical goals
questioning the
hierarchy
of, sciences
between the three and how they reconcile
and put every science
at the right level.
And then,
also, the ultimate goal of the whole message
through the different sciences, which is the way
you reconcile the sciences.
So just to summarize
this: start with the goals.
And the goals are always
ethical goals,
which is once again De Marcasse once again
not to undermine the rules,
but to put the rules at the right
place.
And accepting when you question the goals
that there is a diversity of ways,
meaning,
in fact,
that a Sharia
is not going to be only the legal
framework it's the path
within
which you have
the sources
as the starting point,
the means as defining the path, and
the ultimate goal as what you are trying
to reach, which means
you cannot speak about Sharia without speaking about
Macassa des Sharia
as a way of helping you to reconcile
the knowledges.
So we urgently need
something which has to do with
a reassessment
of this categorization of knowledge that we have
in Islam,
the priority that we are putting, and also
the way we are the methodology
based
on this epistemology that I was talking about.
And
I summarize
epistemology
by saying,
how and from where are you getting your
knowledge?
And then,
what do you want to
achieve here?
So this is
a point which is:
how do we think this reconciliation
and how do we implement this? It's also
based on a methodology
which is not obsessed with the common source,
but which is trying to build
the common goals.
And I would suggest that in everything that
we are doing, as much as at the
individual level, you are always questioning your intentions.
At the collective and scientific level, we have
to question our goals and ethical goals in
everything.
In everything,
in the legal framework as much as in
philosophy. Why? Because it could end up being
very arrogant
if, at the end,
you have a philosophy
of,
knowledge or if you have
a way of dealing with ethics, or with
your rationality,
you can end up being very arrogant.
So
philosophy could be humble
philosophy when
the goals are clear, and it could be
arrogance.
So
rationality
could be
this is where
it's quite problematic. So you have to question
the goals. Exactly the same with,
with,
with FERC, and exactly the same with Tosa
Wolf.
Now,
this is for me the way you can
link
the three things that I was referring to:
the principles,
the means, and the objectives,
through the ethical question.
I
know
by experience
that some scholars in every field,
they have a problem with this, because at
the end
it's questioning
the autonomy
of their specific science
by saying it's a science that has its
own logic and its
own structure,
by questioning through
what I was saying
the ethical framework. And, for example,
the
most aggressive
sometimes. Reaction I got from some of the
scholars were coming from the the Foucaha,
thinking
that the more you speak about ethics, the
less you speak about rules, and it's a
way of undermining. Exactly they have exactly the
same
understanding that when you speak about ethics, it's
as when you speak about the,
the macassid it's the ultimate goals and the
higher objectives.
While in fact it's the other way around.
It's, in fact, giving
the right place to the rules, not by
undermining the rules, but putting them at the
right place where,
in between the philosophy of law and the
clear understanding of the spiritual message, you understand
the very essence of what the law should
be saying,
that you can't
follow the path
if you don't have the rules.
So it's bringing back the rules as
essential,
but not
the exclusive center of the whole Islamic message.
So it's but once again, as it was
said, it has to do with power.
So when you are dealing with all these
fields,
you understand that you are dealing with power
struggle within among the scholars.
And get it right, this idealized
tradition that we have, it's everything went well
and this is the way we have Islamic
sciences, it never happened.
It never happened. This has nothing to do
with the truth. This is romanticizing
our past. It has to do with power.
It
power struggle,
rejection,
condemnation, condemnation,
putting people in jail. Some scholars ended up
in jail when they were questioning the whole
thing.
Now it's very important in our time to
understand
that it's not true.
Anyone who thinks in this room that we
are not facing exactly the same problem as
in the West, fragmentation
of knowledge
is not,
sincere
or not knowledgeable about the reality of Islamic
sciences now. It's not because we are isolating
our science that we are now facing the
whole problem.
We are not equipped
to deal with the complexification
of knowledge and the world today. We are
not.
And we are not
because we end up
using the science as means and not questioning
the goals.
It's everywhere.
You want an example?
Look at what he said about anything which
has to do with politics today coming from
the Muslim majority countries, about economics.
What he said. What he said about the
environment.
What he said, in fact, except quoting some
of the hadiths and some of the verses,
where
do you see coming from the Muslim majority
countries or from Muslims something which has to
do with is efficient as to what we
want and not the way we protect ourselves.
In politics on the defensive,
in,
environment on the defensive, we just are apologetic.
We know what? We have the verses
and we have the Hadith.
But do we have
a clear understanding? And then the second thing
that I want to say: you can't speak
about the goals
if you only speak about the texts.
You have to take into account the context.
Why? Because the context is what where your
goals are becoming realistic.
You take the state of affairs. When the
prophet
arrived in Madinah,
he never came and said, you know what?
You remove all this from there. I don't
want to see the market. I don't want
to see don't want to see Oswald Hazaraj.
Remove that. We are going to start from
scratch. No.
The way he dealt with the sources
was with a deep understanding of the context.
No way to speak about the goals if
you don't get the context within it.
So this is why al Makar said,
the Makar said approach is always bringing,
as part of the whole process,
the relationship between text and context.
How can you set goals if you don't
know where you are going to implement them?
How? That's impossible.
So the ethical question is reconciling
not only the three sciences,
but text and context. There is no choice.
You have to deal with this.
So you have to deal with the environment.
You have to deal with your society. So
look at our society now, our situation.
Past modern reality,
everything is fragmented,
no truth,
And then we come and say, you know
what?
We have the text.
We have the ahadith. And we end up
with a very narrow response to the global
question by saying this is the way we
are going to protect ourselves.
The problem is at the grassroots level. It's
simplistic, but it works.
Why? Because you feel protected, because
where are the
milestones? Where are the old
yardsticks?
How are we going to deal with this?
When everything is scattered, the best is just
come with black and white, halal haram. Give
me the so that's that's okay
at the grassroots level for a while.
Is this our mission?
When
in the text we don't get it. We
made you a nation of the middle path.
Middle path, it means what?
Middle path means in everything,
this life and the hereafter,
the text and the context,
taking into account the reality and changing it.
The middle path is about everything,
the reflection between the macrocosm
and the microcosm
in you. This is the middle path. It's
where you are reconciling all this. Don't end
up with, you know what is the middle
path?
And then you are colonized by the
political discourse that you have in Britain is,
you know what is the middle path? It's
we are against extremists.
What's that? Such a big
philosophical
notion reduced to,
'against extremists.' This is exactly what they want
you to say about yourself. That's nothing,
not being against extremism. And some of our
scholars
It's all about we are not extremists.
I'm sorry.
It's deeper than that. It's about the whole
concept, the notion. It's about sharia,
meaning a concept of life, a concept of
the universe, where you are taking all this
into account. And to take all this into
account, the middle path
is you know where this path is heading.
Where are you going? What do you want
to achieve? And what are you going to
bring into the discussion?
This is the way we have to reconcile
sciences
and to reconcile text
and context.
And everything that is coming from the McCarthy,
which are all the scholars who have been
talking about, we need to think about the
text through the goals,
we're always
bringing into the discussion
the fact that you have to take into
account the context.
So reconciling
all this
is not this overemphasis
on the text,
dismissing the context
overemphasis
on
rules without getting the ethics, is really to
try to change our methodology.
And our methodology is three things, as I
said,
it has to do with a theory of
knowledge,
the epistemology that I was talking about. It
has to do
with
the
restructuring
of the relationship between the different sciences,
and then how do we do this in
the light of the goals.
I hope you understand what I'm saying here.
The floor will be open
for you to question this, but this is
where it's important. Last thing that I wanted
to say here,
if the second element
is right,
it means
that not only
you need to reassess
this chart that we have here by saying
we need to reconsider
the hierarchy between the sciences,
but we also need to have a new
relationship
and a new way of dealing with all
the other sciences.
By the way, how do you call the
other sciences?
You have the religious sciences and the profane
sciences?
How do you call this?
And and, you know,
terminology
matters.
How do you deal with,
mathematics?
You have the hard sciences,
experimental
sciences, and human sciences.
How are you going to bring them into
the discussion?
Do you think that with
Islamic sciences we are going to solve the
problem?
Could you today, with these sciences,
translate what I said? Changing yourself and changing
the world?
Impossible.
Even changing yourself in the world means that
you know what you are all about.
Let me give you an example.
All of you, you are using Internet.
Alhamdulillah,
Ala Kullaha. All of us.
Ala Kullaha.
And some are saying, Darula, there is no
choice. Communication, we have to be we're all
using Internet.
Okay.
Do you know that Internet,
for example,
the social networks
in 3 studies that were produced in, in
the in the states
are producing on the human psychology
something which, has a very
deep
impact. The informal virtual connection
is nurturing a sense that there is a
power somewhere
that is connecting the people,
which is increasing
what they call conspiracy
theory.
But be careful with this,
because there are conspiracies.
I keep on repeating it's a conspiracy to
think that there is no conspiracy, because
there are conspiracies.
But the point is multiplied
by the means.
So in fact, we know this in basic
psychology: the means
have
impact
on the way you think.
Second thing which is important:
now that you can go on the social
network
and not put your name,
be anonymous,
speak without being seen, apparently, if you see
you think that you are not seen and
not heard and you can just
hide.
It's giving a sense of less responsibility
into the action.
So, more conspiracy.
Somewhere somebody is deciding.
And I can't hide behind
being anonymous.
This has an impact on your psychology which
is exactly the opposite of the spiritual stance.
You are responsible
and you are seeing whatever you do. And
at the end,
you have
you are accountable.
You cannot hide. So if you are on
Internet and you send some
nasty messages,
being anonymous,
If you are with God, you know that
you are seen.
If you are with Internet, you know, oh,
that's good.
What I'm saying here is that the means
have an impact on the way we think
and the way it's developed even with young
generations,
to the point that you have
in one of these reports something which is
quite interesting
is nurturing
the victim mentality.
That in fact you are not the object,
you are victim of something which is bigger
than you.
One of the main crises and one of
the main problems that we have among Muslims
is that nurturing the victim mentality. We are
victims. They don't like Islam. They don't like
us.
And they are all against us.
This is coming from also
its first nurtured within, but the means are
coming back and nurturing a sense of
this kind of
intellectual and psychological
colonization
through the means,
which brings also a question: is it possible
to distinguish
between ethical use of the means and the
means themselves?
Which is a big question.
It's not as easy as that.
Once I was talking to Latouche, who is
an economist,
and I was telling him, no. You know
what? In our relationship with the West and
from within the West, we can take some
of the tools and some of the instruments
and add a positive ethical use of the
means.
And he looked at me and he smiled
and said,
simplistic.
Nonsense.
In fact, if you take the TV set
as a means,
you understand that the very philosophy of the
means is within it. You cannot separate.
So if you have
educational
programs, that's fine. 5% of the people,
95% of the people are going to follow
the big thing, which is how do you
attract emotions.
And you are attracting the people from another
side. So, you can have a spiritual resistance,
but
the means is in itself
carrying an ethical
or non ethical
objective.
That's quite scary.
How are you going to do that?
So, if you go with this, with ole
amas,
who have been trained in reading the books,
And you come with this complexified
way of dealing with reality and say, could
you give me a fatwa?
It's not going to work.
And this is exactly what we are doing.
We give them reports and say: give us
a fatwa on this.
That's not going to work. Why?
Because you can only
extract
or get
a sense of what are the ethical goals
if you have a clear understanding of what
are the challenges in a very specific field:
in education,
in the way you deal with
the means now.
In culture, for example, in culture
we'll talk about this tomorrow but
very much what we are doing, once again,
even I said this about economy. It's exactly
what we are doing in cultural terms. We
are Islamizing
the means.
So the only way you resist to a
complex world
is to think about the means and how
you are going to protect.
My take on what I'm saying here, if
you come from ethics and from the goals,
you are obliged to bring into
the fundamental
questions
all the other sciences and especially human sciences.
You have to. No other way to come
to reconcile
knowledges.
If not, we are just following in the
footsteps of
the Western fragmentation
of knowledge. We put some ethical reference this
is halal, this is haram, don't do this,
do this but it's not going to come
with
a vision for the future.
And unfortunately, the mindset of the ole mai
today, and the mindset of many of you,
it's a mindset of reaction,
reacting
or protecting,
which is not a force of proposal.
It's just
a kind
of defensive approach to all this.
So I'm questioning the methodology,
questioning the relationship
between
text and context,
and questioning our relationship to all the other
sciences,
saying
that
you in your field you are maybe sociologist,
you are a physician,
you are
a political scientist
whatever is your field,
if you don't get it right, that in
the name of the common goals you should
be involved in the discussion
about how are we going to be consistent
in ethical terms between the source, the means,
and the goals we are not going to
make it, and bringing the knowledges together.
Because you can't sit down here in this
room and say, you know what, the scholars
are not doing the job.
At the end we have the scholars we
deserve.
If there are followers only asking questions on
the legal framework,
and not on the vision, at the end
you will have answers that are going to
come on the legal framework as if it's
the only
and main reference that you have.
So here
it means
that what should be part of our methodology
is what we call and it's known within
academia, even though it's not very much translated,
transdisciplinary
approach.
The transdisciplinary
approach, in the name of the Common Goals,
based on an ethical approach,
based on
the higher objective,
and then through this, you bring
again this relationship between text and context.
The three main sciences that I was referring
to: philosophy,
mystics, and,
mysticism,
and,
and,
FERC all together.
And then opening this up towards all the
other sciences and to bring them into the
deep
discussion that is needed.
This is the only way
you may we
can liberate ourselves from
the defensive posture within which we are now.
But you understand that.
And I will end with this.
Very good.
I forgot the
5 minutes.
What was my point?
My conclusion.
I forgot my point.
What was my You're talking about the multimonious
Mary approach.
I know.
Yes. I wanted to say something about the
transdisciplinary
and multidisciplinary
approach.
I don't remember, so maybe it will come
so let me come to
concluding
remarks on this.
In the light of all what I was
saying,
what
is central in the whole discussion
is where we look at our history
and the sciences that we have, and the
way it's structured today.
The fact is that
there is a deep crisis,
and we know today
that our contribution
in
scientific terms,
ethical terms. Let me start with the beginning:
our contribution in spiritual terms,
in ethical terms,
in scientific terms,
in educational
terms.
It's very superficial now. There's not a great
deal of contribution.
Now we have two ways.
It is once again to be sure that
we have the truth
without the methodology,
and we wait
for
the other system to collapse, which I heard
from some scholars
saying the West is collapsing let's wait and
see.
The problem is that when you say the
West is collapsing, I'm sorry, we are part
of the West. We are collapsing as well.
So if you are happy with this,
welcome to the
collapsing world.
And,
and some are saying it's decadent.
This is
rubbish.
I think we have to be very clear
on this.
What is our constructive
contribution
to
our society
and our civilization.
At the end, we are part of the
Western civilization,
the European countries, and here we have to
bring the best.
So how are you going to do that?
Not being on the defensive, but trying to
think about our contribution,
our contribution not in defense in a defensive
mode, but in a constructive one.
Having said that and questioning this from the
very beginning,
the question is: Do we
how do we
work from within
to unite
without
uniformity
within
and try to respect the different fields
by questioning them in another way, which is,
I'm not going to question your field, I'm
going to question your goal, what is
the ethical
end result of what you are doing
this is 1
bringing the 3 fields together. And once again,
no Tassar Wolf without the legal framework and
without the philosophy
of,
knowledge.
That's essential for me, is that not to
accept this fragmentation.
Because, by the way, Orientalists
and some are very happy to divide us
by saying the true
face of Islam is tasawwuf,
and a type of tasawwuf that you know.
And some are playing this are playing with
this.
Not only in Muslim majority countries. In the
West, you have people playing with this, and
they are supporting
policies that are targeted
against other Muslims. But they want to be
acknowledged as good Muslims.
And they are ready to say whatever.
You can be critical. I just gave a
lecture yesterday about political Islam. I'm very critical
about what it is now.
But there is no way for me to
accept what is coming from the government, stigmatizing
the people and saying, because you are an
Islamist,
we have the right to support dictators and
to keep quiet when they are put in
jail.
That's just unacceptable.
So when we speak about dignity,
whatever it is you take on opposition, at
least you respect the dignity of the people.
So to keep quiet about what is happening
in Egypt, for example, or what is happening
or what happened in Tunisia, and what happened
in Libya, and what
in Syria, and then to come and to
lecture us about be good,
Muslims, and
what about you being good leaders?
What about you being and promoting
good governance, ethical governance, instead of playing with
us? So what I'm saying here is that
this discussion
here about the methodology
and the way we have to deal with
this is questioning and trying to reconcile all
this.
Adding to this, this reconciliation
between,
in ethical terms, between text and context.
And then, as I said, all the sciences
by respecting
the specificities
and reconciling
the ends,
the aims.
And in which way this could be done
is the discussion.
I forgot what I wanted to say, but
I'm sure with your question it might come
by. Thank you.
Why are you
that's new?
Yes, clapping. You don't know my fat one
on that?
My question is basically,
what can governance do in terms of means,
what's appropriate,
and what ends should it be, prioritizing in
the 21st century?
Wow. That's another seminar.
I just have a question regarding,
respecting the differences within
the various Muslim
methodologies.
If the goal is the same, then presumably,
ethical goals are the same.
They're not accepting of our methodologies.
Do you have an example?
Do I have an example?
I can give you an example,
local to where I live. We have a
group.
I guess you could call them therapy.
And the group that I volunteer with
would be a different methodology, and they keep
saying that our apade isn't correct, etcetera, etcetera.
And they get hung up on that fact.
And we may want to work you know,
for example, combat against COVID immediate, etcetera, etcetera,
and they don't want to work with us
because of our supposedly dodgy paper.
Okay.
There are a few second timers I will,
I'm just gonna get.
Okay.
From an individual point of view in the
sense that scholars
should be well versed in all areas in
order to be the most effective people possible?
Islamic sciences, how they've been used. But even
now,
we are on the periphery in terms of
the Muslim Ummah.
Yet, the challenge is let's change
how that is produced all the methodology.
Same with the west.
It depends when? Oh, okay.
But even from a, values or ethical perspective,
perhaps by offering a minority view,
No, I'm saying that the common ground
are the
goals, is the goal.
If we refer to the goal. Right.
So my question is that how do you
achieve that in a practical
unified, get the people to agree on a
vote?
How do you how does it actually come
about in a practical perspective?
So your question is a
big one, how
you were referring to a professor in Oxford
speaking about good governance and speaking exactly the
same way, means and goals.
And,
it's a long discussion. It's a field in
itself, politics.
But what we,
Al Hakmar Rashid, which is the good governance
that we have, we have a long history
of thinking about this, which is not
only al Mauredi in Islam, which is speaking
about the structure of,
the political structure of governance in Islam.
We are always referring to this.
But there are principles that are quite important
in governance when it comes to some notion
that we have, And we have to think
about
the way we are dealing with them between
the means that we have, the structure,
and also the goals. So
in terms of the goals, when we speak,
for example, about
pluralism,
which is something which is essential.
It's related to the notion of shura, amrohum
shura b'neham.
Transparency,
it's
important. The majority process are
principles that we need to think of the
gold. And we can
borrow from other tradition, other history,
some of the translation of this in structural
terms?
Making it What do you mean, for example,
if the objective is a moral society,
whether that moral society might be people who
are not wasteful,
kind to each other. What means should the,
government
be allowed to use to achieve that goal
in terms of coercion?
Ah, this is yeah. Complicated by law. Yeah.
So so that that's I I would say
it's
yes, but
I would see here that it's a comprehensive
approach that we need. I wouldn't start by
saying what are the coercive
means that we have. I would prefer to
start with what are the steps and what
are the overall
objectives that we want to achieve. And then
in this
way, you can, through a regulation,
through a legal framework,
set a legal framework which is in tune
or at least
thought in the light of
the objective. So once again,
for example, today, and this is a discussion.
We are not going to talk about do
we have politics tomorrow?
No, there is not. But,
sorry. But,
for example,
in the discussion that we had, we we
brought together scholars,
from Tunisia and from Egypt and from, Muslim
majority countries and also other people who were
analysts and political scientists.
And there is a big question, for example,
a very important question when it comes to
freedom.
Because
if freedom is a principle
that we should be free,
but it's also a goal, which is we
have to protect your freedom.
Now,
what are the limits?
Where are you going to set the limits?
And this is where,
in the discussion that we had with some
of the people who were,
in the Noida,
Najjar, for example, who was working with this
the constitutional
committee in
Morocco, he was he kept on repeating:
'El Horiyah
kablesh Sharia'
freedom comes first before Sharia.
Which is in fact, in order to implement
shari'at, you have to start with the freedom
which is the essential nature of human beings,
what I was saying before.
But now, okay, that's fine. What is it
going to be? How it's going to be
translated?
This is where I cannot answer in a
way which is
reducing the whole discussion.
It's an overall discussion that we need to
have about, in the light of the goals,
which type of freedom are you going to
give to the,
to the citizens,
knowing that in any
society there is something which is called absolute
freedom.
You don't. In this country you don't. So
there are limits always.
So this in the light of
your
in your project, political project, based on transparency,
based on dignity,
based on equality,
based on social justice, you have to come
with an understanding of how you are going
to deal with this. So I don't have
a specific model. The only thing that I
see now
is this obsession
by some Islamist groups
of power and reducing politics to state power
is in fact counterproductive,
to the point that today they are facing
these contradictions, they don't know how to deal
with them.
And you understand my point, sir? So
I don't have the whole answer, but at
least this is a direction.
And what you said is that
with many people who are from another religious
background,
people who are Christians and Jews or atheists,
When you talk about this, when you talk
about the goals and when you talk about
the essential
principles and essential objectives that you want to
achieve, you will see that there is an
overlapping
reality, that we find common ground on this.
So if you are obsessed with, oh, it's
coming from the Koran, so it's wrong, or
what you are saying, it's coming from your
mind. You're not going to get that if
we don't understand that,
the ultimate source for Muslims,
God,
Allah
is and by the way,
God is the English name for Allah. Allah
is not the the the the
be careful with this because it's also coming
from some Salafi that, they keep on saying
no, you shouldn't say God, you should have
to say God is 1,
and it's the English
way of, the English. And if I speak
in French, I would say 'du',
and that's it.
And Christians
speaking Arabic,
they speak about Allah
in Arabic when it comes to,
to,
to speak their language. I'm saying this because,
because it's also the other way around. In
the states, I was there, a few months
ago,
a woman was dismissed from her job by
saying, our God is the same God as
the Muslim.
And,
it was understood the other way around
on the side of Christians, which in fact,
Muslims had to come and to explain, yes,
we also think it's the same God.
Sometimes you are in a very strange position.
Anyway,
so on this, you can see that there
are common understandings. And then about
good governance, for example, it's a good way
of starting this discussion
in
epistemological
terms and
a transdisciplinary
approach.
Your question about on the ground, it's very
difficult.
So this is where
you you have to take me right here.
I'm not in this discussion today and tomorrow.
I'm I'm talking about the theoretical framework. It's
upstream of from our reality on the ground.
I'm not going to give you,
tools
and,
instruments to deal with your Salafi neighbor.
You get me right. It's it's on another
level here, where you, as an activist, you
you
my point is that I I have seen
and went
came across so many
activists
that you see that the background is not
there.
So this is what I call not activist.
I'm talking about them as agitated activists,
much more than activist in the name of
a vision,
doing so many things, but what is
the goal and how do we see the
whole thing. So I'm working at that level
to bring our action
into an overall vision.
And when I wrote
what's to be Western Muslims and the Future
of Islam,
my sense at that time was to speak
about the vision, what should be our vision.
So I'm talking about that level. Now
with scholars sometimes, with Choujard, who some could
be with some salafi,
don't even try to go from the rules
to the goals or to the methodology.
That's that
they are thinking that you want to play
with the books
the book, you want to play with the
verses, they're not going to follow.
Now within the Salafi trend, as well as
within the reformists or the Sufis,
you have scholars who are able
to deal with it at that level.
At the grassroots level, when you have people
who say you want to talk about the
goals
and they want to speak about the rules,
this is where,
in the way you deal with them, it's
going to be very difficult to shift
the center of the discussion towards, you know,
the goals while they want to speak about
the rules.
But it might be
that in the way you deal with them
at the grassroots level
is to keep on repeating
that
what are your goals.
That's also very important because
many
they have the impression that you are not
sincere, that you are playing with the verses,
and you are not
serious. So I think the more you are
serious and committed to the text and listening
because, Majic, I completely disagree with the people
who are dismissing the Salafi by saying they
are no,
I think that they are useful.
I don't
agree with the way they look at things,
but I respect many of the scholars in
the way they are dealing with the scriptural
sources, because they are serious.
And they are pushing me in a very
positive, constructive way to be serious with the
text.
So this is why it's a virtuous
circle. You take from them
the seriousness that you need to deal with
the text, and you show through your action
how you are serious,
and you have
maybe another method another way of looking at
it, but you are as sincere and you
want the best,
which means
no judgmental
positioning
about who they are,
making them all the same.
2nd, never cutting the dialogue
with them, even if they cut the dialogue.
Many of the Salafi, for example,
haven't
you know, I have so many people putting
me outside of Islam they haven't even read
one sentence,
but they
are takfiri by procreation,
so so so by proxy.
So so so this is what they are
doing. So this is why you don't cut.
You try to keep and this is a
way of dealing at the grassroots level,
because you have, and this is my conviction,
on the long run,
this position
of closing all doors is not bearable.
It's not.
So they are very tough for a few
years, and after 5 or 6 years, things
are moving. They are realizing when they see,
for example,
I have so many people who were rejecting
what I was saying 20 years ago, and
now they come to me and say, you
know what?
My children
love you.'
I say, 'Thank you.'
So
after having outside the stamps and now you
know? Meaning what? That they got the essence
of the message sometimes through the experience of
their own children, because the children cannot
live in isolation it's not going to work.
And you are giving them some
you are equipping them with a sense of,
you know,
confidence with their value. So this is why
but my take on this
is not to enter into the discussion
with this obsession that we need to find
the common ground and and this is the
way. No. It's it's it's
at the level of the intellectual discussion, this
could be a way, But at the grassroots
level, this is something else, which is
no judgment
no definitive judgment,
always communicating,
and being a witness of your own. You
know,
sometimes you have to be
shayed, a witness, before your own fellow Muslims,
even then, that you are consistent, that you
are sincere, that you are upright, that you
are serving,
that you are smiling.
Even if they don't smile at you, smile.
It's good to smile at Salafi.
I'm serious.