Tariq Ramadan – Islamic Ethics How we Know Right and Wrong #3B
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
That's a good question, what you were saying
about fragmentation of knowledge.
Fragmentation of knowledge, why is it bad? 1st,
we have because at the end, as I
said, you are specialized, but you don't have
the overall
understanding. And you don't you sometimes are very
specialized in one field.
And the instruments remember Einstein,
who at the end saw that what he
was producing
was used
for the nuclear bomb, if I have known.
Because in that field, then it was used
for other ends, other goals.
This is why it's bad. Do we have,
Is it possible for a Muslim to have
all this together?
That's not possible.
What was possible for like somebody like, Ibn
Rush, for example, being a philosopher,
a physician, and and others in the the
old time, is no longer possible for us.
If you are specialized
in,
religious
field, it's going to be very difficult to
be specialized in all the fields.
So,
you can, and you should,
have the basic understanding
in your
as to your religious reference and in your
field
that you can do that.
So whatever is your job, at least
you need to have an ethical framework,
the rules that are needed to be able
to navigate into that field, and to know.
At a certain level, you will need people
who are more qualified,
either in
your field
or in
religious
reference.
And this is why it could be but
collective.
So anything which has to do with scholars
today coming
and giving us fatawa
with no
members coming from a specific field, for me,
it's it's problematic.
And when they are telling me, you know,
when I I published the radical reform, they
told me, but all this is not we
do this. We have people giving us reports
about questions. And that report is nothing.
You're not going to get a sense of
the reality.
So it's not going to be an individual.
You can't do this.
You know, in in in whatever is you
take in in the the way you are
trained,
it's going to be at one point superficial.
It's not enough. So we need to bring
a collective
dynamic,
amongst scholars.
But at least at the individual level,
you should be religiously
equipped with what what is necessary for you
to be autonomous.
You should be autonomous, meaning, at one point,
you should be equipped to deal with the
challenges of your own life.
So this is also something which is important
in in the basic for the basic questions,
but also in your field.
But what is happening today is that many
Muslims,
they know just what is necessary to practice.
But when it comes to their profession or
their job,
they are far from even making a link
between this and that. This is schizophrenia.
Yeah.
It's true.
I think that those who are laughing they
know what I'm talking about because they might
be experiencing it.
So you know again, I can turn it
against you now.
The challenge: Are we at the periphery
of both?
Look, I agree with you that, if we
look at the Muslim majority countries and the
centers, or the traditional centers,
are in the Muslim majority countries. It could
be Al Azhar or it could be,
Al Qura and others.
If you really think that this is the
center,
I have to we have to reassess our
judgment.
Nothing is coming from these institutions now.
It's repetition.
And even the people who are trained there,
they know that. Many.
But there is the power of the symbol.
For example, I had scholars.
I didn't go to an Azhar University. I
have Azhar Scholars,
and I took the traditional
way of being taught. So 1 to 1,
and then you get the Ijez and all
the. But at the end,
it's because I was able to go outside
the institution that I had another type of
teaching. Because within the institution is superficial,
outdated,
not connected to the reality,
and mainly repeating
repeating.
So, the center
is itself
far from the center
of the deep question.
In the beginning of 1990s,
I was saying something that I now think
is critical for us.
It might be that the critical
questions to the Center are going to come
from the periphery.
So fact, us in the West, at the
forefront of these new challenges,
now we might have to come with answers
that are coming back to the Centre.
And they are less equipped than we are
now.
We are not enough equipped as to the
religious institutions and training the scholars, training the
emma. This is what we have to do
now. And we were talking about that. We
need and
I spoke about this in Western Muslims and
the Future of Islam. The third step of
our presence is institutionalizing
our presence.
Institutions
were training
and having this
so this is our job,
knowing at the same time that what I'm
saying here there is a risk,
That if I look at many of the
Muslims who are now based in the west,
the great majority,
the huge majority, are much more concerned with
their
position, their salary, and their protection.
It's what I call the new
age of
the petit bourgeois Muslim.
I'm talking about you.
But that's the reality is,
are we
taking this historical experience
to use the instruments,
to get back to the methodology,
and to ask the real question, because we
are at the center of this critical discussion?
Or are we just,
expecting that the West is
acknowledging that we are nice people?
That's a deep question. It's critical.
And this is where I think that our
historical experience,
winning it or not, the great majority of
of the Western Muslims
are going to enter into what I was
now describing. It's recognition,
being perceived as good Muslims,
dismissing some of the values and some of
the behavior.
But
I'm quite confident,
And I really think that through all what
we have seen over the last 30 years,
there is something in our historical presence in
the West which is going to bring about
something
another dimension.
So, I would say that the first thing
to do is not to think that we
are at the periphery.
It's to position ourselves in an assertive way
at the center of the whole struggle to
renew our understanding.
And not because, you know, it could be
the victim mentality. We are in between 2
worlds. Look at us. We have no say
in the West, no say in the Arab
world or the Muslim world, so we are
nowhere.
And it might be no, but that's a
critical
psychological positioning that, when I was saying this
in the nineties, I was saying
the periphery is going to be essential,
the periphery is going to
you know,
my brother was always saying, 'Muslims are not
going to be free
unless they free
Saudi Arabia.
So the center go,
do.
I was young
I'm banned from there.
So, that's true, by the way. But,
anyway,
I really think that it might be the
other way around,
that we really have to think about our
experience elsewhere
and how much
we are equipped. We have look at the
second, third, and fourth generations
of Muslim in the West. Some of them
are equipped. They have the freedom. They have
the status. They can do something. So this
is why we have to change this by
saying, No, I'm sorry. If you want to
put me at the periphery, I will show
you that we are the center,
because we are at the forefront.
And I'm not going to accept this victim
mentality of saying, I'm not part of the
whole thing.
And I would tell you something.
Take it as it is.
All what you see
coming from all the Western governments
telling
you integration is failing,
it's because it's the other it's exactly the
opposite that it's working on the ground. What
is happening on the ground is not at
all this it's that you are becoming more
visible because it's working.
They keep on having a rhetoric telling you,
it's not working. You are not. It is
working, and we are going to get out
of the social ghettos, the intellectual ghettos, the
financial
dependency. This is going to happen,
and this is why they are so aggressive
by telling you we want Muslims without Islam.
Now we have to show that we are
able to be Muslims with Islam, being European,
being British, and now we are going to
play a role not only for Muslims here,
but questioning the whole system and the methodology
that we have around the world.
This is why I'm concentrating now my next
book, it's called A Manifesto for an Islamic
Liberation Theology.
But that's exactly this.
And
okay.
So,
the question was about the pragmatic way. Who
who was asking the question? It's, how do
we?
So
you are right in a way.
I have been in so many committees and
commissions, and and you can see that it's
very difficult.
And even with you know, when I I
wrote radical reform, I had I had lots
of questions. And by the way, many people
are saying, so many questions you don't have
an answer, because I'm not a specialist in
economy and I'm not a specialist in environment.
I studied the basic
questions,
but now I need specialists to come. And
what I realized over the last 3 years
is that what I was saying in the
during the break is that you put the
scholars of the text, you put the scholars
of the context, you put them together, they
don't understand each other.
They don't speak the same language. They don't
speak they don't have the same so there
is a gap. And especially with the scholars,
who are trained in a very traditional way,
they don't get it. So now we are
focusing on younger scholars, and we need to
work with them and to bring them together.
And it could be that scholars that are
trained in the West and at the same
time in Islamic
traditional
institutions.
So we need now to try to find
this
link,
disconnect
between
the scholars, and then to be also pragmatic
in the way we are you
are
talking at the same time about
you are talking at the same time about
renewing the methodology
and finding the scholars who are able to
understand that.
And some when I'm talking to you like
this, there are some scholars
and and and and Rollema Young
and people coming from the different fields, political
sciences, experimental sciences, and human sciences,
that get the sense of what we can
do and in which way we have to
reassess the whole question.
So
pushing the people not to be
observers of what is happening, to be much
more involved, and to try to be equipped
is something which
is important.
Now, for the time being, there is one
thing which is a failure is that the
concrete answer that we may have to concrete
question now,
we are very far from
producing something. It's still very general,
very
theoretical,
and this is where we need to be
much more involved. But
I don't know if you in the last
book, the book that you have here and
in the previous book, in the radical reform,
I really think that we are ending a
cycle now,
that the 20th century was, you know, the
revivalist movement and renewal and Tajdeed and Nishtihad
was something which is but we are ending
now. We need something which is new.
So I'm just
participating to the end of the cycle.
That's real. That's
I reached the limits of what I can
produce, thinking that now what we need is
younger generations, scholars, or in being able to
come with something which is new on this,
with all what we were doing,
but putting themselves at the center, not at
the periphery.
About the first question, Muslim majority countries and
Western Muslims, is it relevant or not to
still refer to this?
Yes and no.
I think that if we speak about
what we are talking about now,
I think, no,
we should not make this distinction because our
experiences
in the societies today are quite the same,
except that some are
misled by some symbols, and some are happy.
You say, you know, in the Islamic context,
in Muslim majority countries, you have a azan.
By the way, you can put it on
your computer, that's fine as well.
So I think that the context and the
culture and even in some Muslim majority countries,
the daily life, it's not as Islamic
as that. So
I think that all these symbols and this
perception,
at that level,
it's different
in our discussion now.
Now
in daily life,
with some of the challenges that you have
in Muslim majority countries
and within the majority, when the Muslims are
in majority, there are still different challenges sometimes
about the way you deal with
the references,
and you deal with the current culture.
I would say, for example, that in Muslim
majority countries the relationship to power is different,
the relationship to culture is different.
Especially for example,
you know, you go to an Arabic country
and they look at all
the rest of the world as not being
very much Islamic because they are not at
the center of the Arab culture. And first
Islam was coming from an Arabic culture.
So it's an Arab culture, and and Arab
was the language Arabic was the language of
the Quran,
and that's the problem.
When I'm saying this
to
people coming from Pakistan and Bangladesh, they like
it. When I'm saying, you know what, it's
true that Arabic is the language of the
Koran, but the Arab culture
is not the culture of Islam. I say,
yes. Yes. Good.
Say it again.
But then,
so I repeat it because I know
you you like it.
But, at the same time, you come to
Britain,
and the way
the Bangladesh
or the Pakistan are dealing with the British
culture is exactly the same as Arabs are
dealing with the Pakistani and the Bangladeshi culture.
I say, yes. Yes. And then you have,
somebody who converts to Islam.
Yes. Muslim, but still British culture. So
so it's Islamic, but not like our Islam.
Our Islam is more authentic
because it's
the Urdu language, the Pakistani and Bangladeshi culture.
So we are all projecting onto others exactly
the same
attitude. But what I'm saying here is that
you have to take this into account
because the cultural setting has an impact. So
I would say
some of the challenges in Muslim majority countries
are quite different
from the challenges. I don't say I wouldn't
say the challenges, but the priority
in the challenges are different. So you still
have sometimes to deal with questions. So, for
example, when I go to the Middle East
in some Muslim majority countries, I can feel
that
the relationship
to the rest of the society is quite
different.
For example,
here in the West,
when it comes to, you know, it was
said that I don't like the concept of
minority, and I don't like it when it
comes to citizenship.
But there is something that we were told
and myself when I wrote in the beginning
of 90s, I wrote to be a European
Muslim
What
was
told to us is you have to abide
by the rules
of the country, the legal framework.
So in fact, you have to integrate into
the legal structure of the state.
This is what we heard.
And we tried to think about FERC in
the way how are we going to fit
within the legal.
And in fact, this was not the question.
This was a misleading
question to avoid,
one which was deeper than that, that in
fact the question is not if you abide
by the law, but because the Muslims are
abiding by the law it's the sense of
belonging to the nation.
The problem is not with the state it's
with the nation.
And some are looking at us now in
the West by saying, 'Yes, you have the
passport,
but you don't really belong.'
They are creating an informal status of foreign
citizens.
And this is
difficult it's difficult for them to put them
to put us within the common narrative.
This is why prevent and everything which is
said about political Islam is British values.
As if you,
as Muslims, you have to prove
not only that you abide by the law
but you share
the narrative.
So you are within the state, outside the
nation.
And that's the reality of it, which is
exactly what
Trump
to Cameron
to Holland
to all of them, they are doing exactly
the same,
or they are saying exactly the same.
I am saying this why:
because then you go to Muslim majority countries,
and you see that the way they deal
with religious minorities is exactly the same.
I was in Malaysia, and dealing with Muslims,
saying, you know what? I talk to so
many people of outer faiths,
and they feel that they have a second
class citizenship because they are not part of
the narrative that you are creating the Malay
culture, which is Islamic.
So you are doing the same.
So you would see here that sometimes this
arrogance
or this lack of understanding
of what it means to belong to, it's
exactly
happening the other way around in Muslim majority
countries.
So it's not exactly the same.
And I'm using
my experience in the West to go to
Muslim majority countries and to question exactly this:
that at the end it's not a question
of legal
equality,
it has to do with equal
sense of belonging to the nation.
The fact that you can say we.
Who told me this? Who taught me this?
All the messengers
and all the prophets being rejected by the
people and talking to them, saying, Yeah, call
me, my people.
So that's also something which so I agree
and not agree with the whole thing. I
think that on some issues we have to
avoid this and especially when it comes to
FIRP, and especially when it comes to,
the level of our discussion here. Now,
implementation
of Sharia.
I'm not saying
that Sharia, or
the legal framework, is not essential. For For
me, the legal framework is essential.
But for me, shari'ah is a concept as
it is put here.
And also, it's the path towards faithfulness.
So I would say exactly the opposite.
Instead of thinking, do we have to implement
Sharia?'
I would say,
Sharia is already implemented the very moment you
say
la ilaha illallah where you live. So you
live in Britain,
and you say la ilaha illallah, you are
a believer, you are implementing Sharia.
A shahada
is to be a Muslim.
A sharia is to remain a Muslim.
It's the past. You start in in sharia.
So, for example, people didn't understand on why
they're saying, you know what? I abide by
the law of the state here in the
in the UK. It's my Sharia. When it's
said in the in
the in the legal framework that we are
equal before law, that's me.
That's my Sharia.
Everything which is good is my sharia.
Everything.
So sharia is based on the good
and the human
and,
interests,
masala haines.
So it's my sharia. So we have. So
the point is not to reduce it by
saying
you start implementing the sharia when we come
with the legal
framework,
which is wrong,
or the penal code, which is punishment, which
is completely wrong.
This is just the other way around. I
say, when you start with freedom,
education
no freedom without education. Responsibility,
equality and justice,
that's your sharia.
And anything which is coming from
another
source, culture or society
or legal framework,
Implementing this, it's yours.
So I I would say exactly the opposite.
By to be able to say this, you
have to redefine Sharia.
Exactly. So you know what you have to
do in Britain, what you have to do
in your life, is to
claim again
the authority
on the definition of your terminology.
Sharia,
jihad,
even, you know, governance,
pluralism,
shura,
equality, men and women. All these things. We
have to be able to do this, and
we have to reassess this
by coming with a very powerful discourse based
on
your own definition.
For too long now,
our
terminology,
our notions were translated
by other
either Orientalists
or Muslims
who were not understanding
the context within which they were living, and
they were giving us
reductive
notions. So so
you know,
linguistic jihad
yes, there is an intellectual jihad and a
linguistic jihad.
I'm struggling with this. It's true. It's serious.
You know, this is politics.
Language is power,
said Foucault. And he's right. Do do who
is deciding the meaning of the words?
So yesterday, you were telling us Nelson Mandela
was a terrorist. All of a sudden he
is the the freedom fighter and the great
man in the world. Who decided that?
That the very people who were putting him
in jail and supporting the government, the United
States of America, they wanted to go and
to visit him before he was dying.
The same.
Who decided this? The people that yesterday you
were telling us they were freedom fighters against
the Russians in Afghanistan,
they knew you were supporting them, Bin Laden
was the first that you were supporting, Now
they are the terrorists that we are going
to bombard, because they are
the worst on earth.
So,
but at that level,
it's very clear. In our daily life, it's
exactly the same. Who is deciding? Who is
defining? Who is giving us the terminology? Indeed,
if you don't do this, if you, based
in the U. K, being able to stay
2 days here
in a seminar, meaning that you have the
knowledge and you can build and construct something
which is a universe of reference based on
your terminology and your definition, If you don't
do that, who is going to do it?
Who is going to do it? You have
to come with this very powerful presence. No,
jihad doesn't mean this. No, Sharia, it's not
this. And and be careful that you have
some Muslims playing with the words against,
what what we are trying to do.
Even, for example, you have Islamist.
I'm teaching this at Oxford.
I say, what do you mean by Islamist?
You're putting everything. It's completely it's a it's
a mess. It's you are confusing.
But it's in fact, it's not because of
ignorance.
There is strategic
ignorance
as well, as much as you have strategic
diversion.
So be more
equipped, but I think that this is why
I'm sorry. I take one question and I
go for other things, but
look, extremist group. Who was asking this question?
What extremist groups?
Look,
there are limits
to the way you are going to unite
people.
Some of them
are not going to even accept in the
way they are dealing with,
the leaders of the extremist groups. They don't
even consider you as
having the credential or being part of the
whole discussion.
So I think that when it comes to
a dialogue,
we should be humble and know the limits.
It doesn't mean that we have to cut
communication. We also always try
and try to,
think about the methodology and and the way
they are dealing with the scriptural sources.
But at the end,
where, for example, we have been studying what
was produced by ISO, produced by
Daesh,
they are referring to some verses. Whatever
is your methodology on this, they are not
going to listen, the great majority of them.
So it's very difficult with the leaders. Now
what we can do is to work
and try
to convince the followers, and to try to
enter into this discussion with the followers. And
this is where
I wouldn't
I don't disagree with you. I think that
we have to work on both. You have
to work on the methodology because this is
critical,
knowing the overall message, and also the goals,
what Islam is all about because this is
part of the message. But speaking about the
goals is not going to help us in
this very specific issue and in this specific
type
of dialogue that we may have about some
of the extremists. But once again,
I see and I I understood,
you know, over the last all these years
at the grassroots level
and dealing with Muslims that you have to
be even
you need to be realistic
with the people with whom you can talk.
And I I because it's going to be
very disappointing.
I tried once. I went to the southern
Egypt at the time I was studying.
It's very difficult
very difficult because they don't even listen to
everything that you are saying. It's that they
take one verse, and then the methodology is
what you are trying to say
is by by
connecting the verses and getting the whole message
is just
you are destroying the message. So they don't
even listen to what you have to say
because the verse that they are referring to
is so clear.
This could be one thing.
And there is another thing, which is,
where I was I found myself helpless
is with
people who really
have been radicalized,
and I use here the word becoming
extreme and radicalized
because of their experience with
repression.
So whatever you are going to say
is very difficult.
They have, but it's just not at all
going to be they are not going at
all to hear what you are going to
say because it's a literalist
extracting some verses, so they have. And sometimes,
some of them are completely distorting. For example,
they are quoting in the, in the Tymie
and others, and they are distorting the whole
thing. So some are
sincere and equipped.
And when you come to them
they are just saying that
your methodology
is not rooted in this language they don't
even listen to you. It's just dismissing
what you are going to say. Some others
are not so sincere the way they are,
quoting, and and you come and you tell
them, you know, and that EMEA is not
saying this in such a way you cut
the reference.
Don't want to listen.
So you need to know that at that
level it's going to be very difficult with
some of them.
But I also want to tell you that
sometimes with some
extremist
interpretations,
it's not only the methodology that has to
do with, with the text. It's also personal
and historical experience
that we also have to take into account
when you come to this.
For example, in southern,
Egypt, the one who
just
told me it's over. There is no discussion
between me and the government. It's that there
was
a a share that we loved so much.
He was trying to bring us all together,
Christian and Muslims in the region.
They came during the jomarrah. And while we
were
listening to him in the mosque, they entered
with their shoes, and they killed him in
front of me.
Now, you say whatever you want, no discussion.
These are criminals. We are going to fight
them.
So now you can come with all the
methodologies that you want. It's not going to
work.
It's another dimension here. But I'm saying this
because many of our young people,
when
in 3 weeks 2 weeks they fall into
something which is a very
violent way of dealing with the sources,
we also have to be very
very cautious not to confuse
the methodological question with
the experience the personal experience
in some of the in some of the
the situation.
So,
quickly,
what you were saying about the moral epistemology
and the moral framework that could be missing.
Where are you? Here.
You are referring to
to the extremists as well? Yeah.
Once again, here,
it's true that
if
we
had, and if it's possible,
to produce
an ethical
framework or an ethical frame of reference
that could be convincing
by showing, you know, we are responding to
you by saying all what you are doing,
it's against this.
It's going it could be
interesting. It's not going to have an impact.
Why?
Because the great majority of these people in
the way they deal with the scriptural sources
is trying to get
the ruling
and the legal opinion. They don't care about
the morality and what you are saying because
morality is a step
beyond or a step before.
So what we want to do and what
we want to know,
it is Islamically
possible to justify
resisting,
you know, oppressors
or killing people.
Do we find in our tradition
justification
for killing people, killing non Muslims, the way
they put it, or to kill,
colonizers,
or to kill the enemies of Islam.
Now you come with the ethical ground, they
say that's fine.
You might come from Switzerland, you might come
from the UK is not going to work.
They deal with
the legal justification.
So you can see that,
in fact, all what I was saying this
morning about the primacy of the legal framework
is also playing
in the field of this literalist understanding.
So I don't see
our discourse on the moral
framework as being efficient
in dismissing their point. I don't see it
because they don't care.
Because they would say, look, some scholars said
it's legitimate.
And the point is,
to be serious about that,
that if you read the Islamic tradition
and you read some of the scholars, many
things
have been justified
in the name of Islam when it comes
to violence.
We cannot deny this.
Many things were justified
and in the way it was perceived in
a very specific context in our history.
So you have to reassess that.
For example,
we talk today about defensive
resistance.
Resistance which is a defensive
way. That's true. But no one can deny
that in our literature from the very beginning
we had scholars supporting offensive, that you can
go and you can open.
Al Fata is something that was there.
So
this is where
we have to to not to deny
what was produced by our scholars, but to
reassess
with
the understanding of the moral framework
and the understanding of the overall message, even
as to the rules.
And for example,
the deep discussion I know that some of
the Muslims
didn't agree with me when I was saying,
you know, I was banned from the United
States of America for two reasons. This is
what the homeland security told me when they
came, say, why are you saying that the
resistance in Iraq is right?
And I said yes, it's right because you
are wrong.
You have nothing to do there.
That it's a legitimate resistance to wrong and
illegal occupation.
2nd,
are you supporting the Palestinian resistance?
Yes. And the Palestinians are right to resist
the Israeli colonizers
in the occupied territory and everywhere,
because this is a colonial project.
This is something that I added here, is
the resistance is legitimate
and my point is the means should be
legitimate.
Killing innocent people
in Israel,
it's not for me morally
attainable,
which was putting me at odds with Sherry
Youssef Al Khardawi and others. And I had
a discussion, I said, and I repeated this:
I think that's not the right way of
putting it.
For me,
you have the right to resist, but your
means of resistance should be as ethical as
the goal
of
your
resistance.
But that's not enough for the United States
of America, of course, and even by saying,
we have to be courageous here. When the
people are saying you have to condemn violence,
you say, yes, we condemn violence, but please,
we have to make a difference between legitimate
resistance
to occupation
and violence coming from Daesh. So, for example,
when,
Sharon was saying,
now you know what it means, what terrorist
means,
after 2,001,
and and equating this with Yasser Arafat,
or today saying Daish and Hamas are the
same, I'm sorry, that's not acceptable.
That's not.
And many Muslims, in order to be accepted
in the discussion, they don't dare
speaking about this. I'm sorry, It's a legitimate
resistance.
And to say it, I'm quoting,
the one who is praised now as the
icon
of, human rights, Nelson Mandela,
who said we are not going to be
free and truly free in South Africa until
the Palestinians are going to be free. And
these people were elected, so I talked to
the elected people, and their resistance is legitimate.
And he's
right. Now you can disagree with the means,
but you have to accept
the resistance. The problem is that many of
us today in this discussion, we are so
scared to be this. And and this is
where
the young people,
they are not going to trust us,
and they are going to people who are
going to stay straight to the point, because
we are not courageous enough to say the
truth or to speak. So if there is
no constructed
political discourse
on moral terms, what I'm saying is very
moral.
It's very moral, because what I'm saying, who
are you praising in Britain? Who are you
praising in France? The resistance.
During the 2nd world war, the resistance was,
these were the people who had the dignity
of your country.
So why is it now that you come
and you say to all the resistance to
oppression, you are terrorists?'
Because they are not protecting your interests.
So you change the words depending on your
interests.
If you come with this
you know, there is a mayor,
in Belgium saying this discourse coming from Tariq
Ramadan is the best protection to terrorism and
violence, because he's speaking
by
saying legitimate resistance,
no blind violence, and then we have to
have a moral resistance.
And I think that this is where we
don't have these voices coming from the Muslim
communities. It's as if we are scared
to differentiate. And when we don't have a
political discourse,
the void is going to be taken by
people who are speaking in our name, but
they are not
responding to the need of the young generation.
The young generation, they want something which is
substantial. Tell me what I do with discrimination,
tell me what I do with occupation, tell
me what I do with oppression.
And say, peace and love.
And then you ask yourself why. So
I would say that the moral framework should
be here. Okay. Quickly.
Two questions.
Yes, I think that you are right, and
it's very important for both scholars, so to
speak, to know exactly
the limits of their expertise. That's true.
And I think the best way here
is to bring them together
as well, because this is where they can
see the limits.
And I can tell you, we we did
this with all the seminars that we had.
It was quite clear that some of the
the scholars, they were feeling,
you know,
I keep on repeating this because it was
so
obvious. When you speak with
the
Shuillot, they with Shuillot who were, you know,
trained in Islam, the way they speak about
the West is quite dismissive.
Put them with Western scholars
and you can smile.
Because you see that there is a kind
of a complex
and a kind of delight they want to
convince them and they like them, and at
the same time, they don't like the fact
that they like them,
as all of us from the South
liking the West but not liking the fact
that we like. So it's,
schizophrenia. Anyway,
so
that's the reality.
So when you bring them together, you can
see here
you know, the knowledge.
It was the case in psychology. It was
the case in economics, in media. Then we
put scholars and you can see that there
is a gap here. So the best
is for the scholars to be, to be,
brought together and to have this dynamic. And
this is where the people can get a
sense of the limitations, because many of the
Choueurs,
they think that they know almost everything about
the economy or about medical sciences, and it's
a problem. On the other side you have
some in their field, they know a bit
of Islam and they are becoming shuyuk
and
fuqaha.
This is the reality of it. So I
think that this is where it's very important
to bring the people together and and to
work
We have to put the people in a
situation where they are confident with their expertise
and humble as to the limits of their
expertise.
But so so this is a setting. The
people who are bringing them together, they should
think about this.
Acknowledging your knowledge
and acknowledging
or making you acknowledge, without saying it,
the limits
of your knowledge. So this is what you
know, this is why the form of the
setting is as important as the substance, how
you are coming to bring the people together
to make them feel this. And the last
question,
which is a spiritual one.
So, a nuruf al kalb, which is, who
are you?
Yeah.
It's true.
You know in the mystical tradition, but it's
also in the Islamic tradition,
there is a word
that
is one of the names of the Quran,
al Forqar,
discernment,
which is helping you to see
the good or to to distinguish
or to have the perception of what is
good and what is bad.
And you are doing this
with many dimensions of your being
your mind and your heart.
It's not your eyes that are becoming blind,
it's your heart.
And many of the scholars this is something
which is you have this in the Maliki
tradition,
but have it in all the traditions. You
know that the great scholars, before even thinking
about the fatwa,
they were making ablution
when they were to read the Qur'an, making
I should be in the spiritual
disposition to read.
It doesn't mean I'm going to read with
my mind.
I'm going to make the Koran accessible to
my heart.
So meaning that the fatwa
is not an intellectual construct
or product.
It has to do with the heart.
It has to do with the state, and
many of them. The great
folk kaha were at the same time
mystics.
And they were in this, almost all of
them. And if they were not in a
circle,
they were experiencing the spiritual dimension of what
it means to extract a rule, because you
don't extract a rule with your mind, you
extract a rule with your spiritual being.
So it's also your heart.
So it means,
what I was saying here, is that this
reconciliation
is: how are you going to put some
light in your heart?
By sitting down and saying, I'm waiting for
the light to come?'
No.
By changing your behavior,
by going through this purification of the heart,
which means
change your behavior,
your heart is going to be alive. Make
your heart alive through your behavior.
So in fact,
the more you change your behavior,
the more you give light to your you
you put some light in your heart, and
the more you have this
forqaad,
which is discernment.
Sometimes
you see and this is the the difference
between alzahir and albatin. A zahir is the
the the visible,
the phenomenological
dimension of the text, and albatein is what
is hidden within the text that you can
get with your heart. And sometimes this intuition,
this spiritual, what we call in Arabic ilham,
spiritual
inspiration,
It's coming with the scholar. It's coming with
ordinary people.
So I agree with you, but be careful.
Not this
at the price of all what is coming
with it
reforming your behavior,
educating your mind,
and knowing how you have to behave with
your own body. It's a comprehensive approach. It's
not one versus the other, which sometimes is
presented by
mystical groups that are saying, No, the heart
is everything. No, the heart
you know why I'm the way I'm putting
it, it's coming from my father, Raheemahullah. Once
he was very tired,
and I
came, and he told me something. I was
very young, and it never,
left my mind. He said, you know what?
Your heart is the light,
your reason is the way.
Yes.
The light to know where you go, but
the reason to know how to go with
this light. So you need both.
No light in your heart without some light
in your reason, and no light in your
reason without light in the heart. The light
is giving you the way to look at
things, to see things, and reason is helping
you to
follow the direction.