Tariq Ramadan – Islamic Ethics How we Know Right and Wrong #4B
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
Okay. About your question on
you know,
that's,
of course, you know,
in a book that is going to come,
which is
about
contemporary
Islamic
reformers.
It was written a long time ago in
French. It's going to be published now
in the coming year in English.
I'm talking about Said and Norsin.
I'm also talking about, some of the reformists.
And, you know, when they are dealing on
the ground,
there is a strategy for him for them
is how do we go towards a practical
reform?
And it's normal they would say, for example,
it was set by side in North Sea,
one of the first in the 20th century,
and then you can even find this with
Hassan El Bandein, the way he was thinking
of changing.
I start with the individual, and then the
family, and then the society, and then the
state. It's what
we call the gradualist approach.
My point on this is that we have
to be very clear.
A gradualist
approach
has a meaning
and could be efficient
only if we start with the cosmological
overall view.
That's very important, is is what do we
want to achieve? How where are we heading?
So the problem that I have with many
activists
is that at the end, they're so active.
They are responding to so many practical challenges
in free term, for example, that at the
end the overall picture is lost.
So we are ending up in a competition
for power, in a competition
for efficiency,
that you can be efficient
at a specific time, very pragmatic,
but at the end, what is the what
is the what are you trying to do?
And and
the measurement of success is also very important.
Because if at the end, you are counting
how many people you are training
and how many families. And say, oh, it's
very successful. It's a question of number. So
it might be that the number of individuals,
it's not reflecting
the overall vision of the project.
You know, when you for example, even like
this is
in a discussion that I,
I had on Islamic schools. At the end,
you are training people, and you are training,
children,
and it's an Islamic school. But at the
end, the technicality
of setting the Islamic school is
undermining the very essence of the philosophy
of Islamic teaching.
So there is a distortion.
This is why you always have to check
your intention. Within this, you can put family,
but I don't want to start talking about
family. Family is essential,
but not in the way we are putting
in. Everywhere you go, you know, family is
essential.
Family yes, that's fine, but tell me, how
are you going in this world today to
speak about the big picture? How do you
get and how do you set a family?
Because, willing it or not, today, family is
a jihad.
To set a family is just, welcome to
the world of jihad. It's going to be
tough.
I'm gonna have to say to people when
they are going to get married, you know
what? It's a new jihad.
So it's love, but
a jihad of love is
it's you know,
I'm serious,
but this has to come with the big
picture.
So I don't want that. My question here
is, I want to come to practical
discussion through the overall thing, because my main
concern today is I have been working at
the grassroots level with so many people who
are so active that we are losing the
the the the way and the objective. And
more than that is that,
at the end, if you enter into discussions
with other trends, for example,
literally Salafi
or,
Mutasa Wifun,
if you don't have this in mind, it's
very, very
easy
to divide and to experience fracture on details
where at the end the overall picture is
much more important than that.
So so this is this is my take
on that.
You know, I always when I was asked,
when I was to go to the States,
they were asking for an activist scholar.
And this is exactly what I want. I
want I want to reconcile university
with society,
with the city.
This is what I want, but not at
the price
of the knowledge that is necessary to be
an activist and not at the price of
activism
being lost because we are worshipping knowledge.
There's a loisortilla in this.
That's essential.
I, of course, don't buy the theory,
which is based on,
utilitarianism
from the starting point, is how in fact
everything
in
the human being
behavior, which also is based on theories that
we have in
behaviorism.
There
is something which has to do with
a psychological
theory which is also based on this. In
fact,
what is driving you, the driving force,
the motives of everything you do, is self
interest.
This is why I told you,
if you don't start
with a deep
not only saying it, not only stating it,
but understand the deep understanding
of the
first truth, which is La ilaha illallah,
which is the tawhid,
you are going to be lost in this
discussion,
because this is the starting point, saying, no,
there is nothing like truth. It's all about
useful
means to achieve
self interest.
So what you are looking in psychological terms
is this peace. So the way you are
going to define peace is the way it's
going to be useful for yourself.
So instead of
having an axis which is la ilaha illallah,
it's the self, which is the axis of
everything,
the self,
to the point that when you say, for
example, in economic terms because this is used
also within economics by saying: You know what?
At the end, what is the driving force
of
economy?
It's going to be profit. Why is it
profit? Because every human being is trying to
find its self interest. So it could be
in psychological terms or it could be in
financial terms. So it's the
same. So the very center,
the center of gravity of the whole system,
is the person,
not the truth. So
I have no scientific
means
to show that it is wrong.
But my take on the truth is to
say: That's wrong.
It's in fact I'm not only driven
by my self interest, there is something that
was put by God which is calling me
back. 'Yehayu
Haledinah'em
and 'U' is come back, come back to
the origin.
It has nothing to do with interest. It
has to do with destiny.
It has to do with the very essence
of my being.
So the only answer that you can get
to this,
to
utilitarianism,
is not to try to go to the
moral and say, you know what, not everything
in our ethical framework is about pleasure
or hardship.'
No, that's this issue is you are entering
into the paradigm that they are setting for
you.
So my take on this is I'm questioning
the very system
based on the definition of the self. I'm
sorry that's not the way I see it.
Why? Because my definition of the self is
coming from a deep understanding of this relationship
between the transcendence
and my presence,
which is not based on this,
To the point
that even in the way
I have to think about
il geno and nahr,
paradise and hellfire.
It's something which is a step.
We need to get that. It's a step.
It shouldn't be the final understanding.
Some we are asking Allah. We are asking
you, Allahum manas alukaljannah.
We're asking you the paradise.
But we need to be very cautious with
not ending this. And the Khayyam al Jazia
was saying this supplication
is the starting point of the spiritual journey.
It's imam I tajir.
It's the imam of the trader.
I do this, give me that.
Am I going to tell you about the
trade that is going to save you?
This is the starting point. It could not
be the last one. Why? Because the highest
level is an ihsan.
Not the way we are translating the hadith
that you've worshipped Allah as if you were
seeing him, because if you don't
see him, he's seeing you. And we are
transforming this into something which is a guilty
approach, which is: Be careful. He sees you
when you are doing wrong.
That's not the meaning of the hadith al
Hassan. It's he's with you wherever you are.
He's with you, so talk to him.
No. Remember that he's here. He's every time,
wherever you are, he's with you. He's close
to you, closer to the jugular vein.
This it's important why,
because at the end his presence
with you is not the presence
of
this nurturing a sense of guilt,
but
nurturing a sense of
meaning,
a sense of destination,
coming back to him. Not for your self
interest because the highest level,
fearing
this loving,
reverential love that we have, as if we
are seeing you. And this,
that the highest level of our spiritual journey
is to see you as you are, not
paradise.
Sorry?
It's a pleasure. Yes, but once again, once
again, you are transforming this into the
utilitarianist
framework, and I'm rejecting it from the very
beginning.
That's even more than pleasure.
This is salvation.
You get the difference?
What they are saying in terms of pleasure,
I'm saying this is to be saved in
the name of the truth and the truth
calling me back to the origin.
They cannot get that, because they are transforming
me into a set of emotions
that are driving me. I'm not driven by
emotion,
to the point that my spiritual journey is
going to be sometimes
something which is going to
push me to get something which is not
going to come in the whole journey,
it's
sacrificing yourself.
What if you say,
I'm giving my life?
They will translate this, oh, because you think
that the pleasure after will be better than
the pleasure here.' So this is a translation
of everything into a
very materialistic
emotional
description of the self,
which is not what we are talking about.
So this is why I'm saying the starting
point, it's not in trying to show that
we are accepting hardship.
The starting point is: where is your truth?
Are you at the center or God is
at the center?
If God is at the center, all this
theory is not working.
Because behind this theory you know what you
find?
That God
is a human creation.
That's it.
It's a human creation, that you are creating
God and then you put the you explain
where you are going to find pleasure
and hardship, and then you construct the whole
thing.
Because from the other side,
this is why sometimes people are saying, do
we really need God?'
I said, this is not my question.
I'm not talking about God as I'm in
need
of creating him.
It's the very essence. This is the truth.
So the starting point is an act of
faith.
It's a good question because this is where
in entering into this discussion you have to
position yourself.
Are you falling into the trap of accepting
that everything in your life is based on
pleasure
and rejecting or avoiding hardship, which is the
starting point of
utilitarianism,
which is an ideology,
an ideology that is saying, at the center,
that God is not the center,
or creating an understanding of religion.
Because sometimes you can have people, and they
say, God exists,
but all the religions are produced
by this type of understanding.
Who said that?
At the beginning when he started to leave,
he was a believer first, Nietzsche said that,
and step by step he went to destroy
the church and die, then, kill God. God
is dead.
It's what he did.
But I would say that
I am taking time for this question because
it's a critical one. But I want you
to understand that in all what I said
today,
it's the first thing that I said, which
is my answer.
From an onset, accept the initial premises of
an article? Yes, that's a good question, but
this is what I exactly try to do,
is
if you are talking about being Cartesian,
and it's true, you have to be
not
what I'm saying
is not
rationalistic,
but it's not irrational.
You have to put in a rational way
where your act of faith
starts and what it means.
So you start with: this is the truth,
and this is the system. This is my
cosmology.
You might disagree with it,
but this is something which not only
I think with my mind,
but I am experiencing it with my heart.
This is the truth for me.
So you put the others into a situation
where they cannot start but with mutual respect,
because they don't have the means to destroy
this,
except by destroying the whole the first truth,
by saying, okay, that's fine, but this is
your position.
And then, in all the construction and the
discussion,
to be also able, in your own
system,
to be able to take a few things
which are right. In fact, it's true.
For us,
who is the one
that is pushing you only to think about
your self interest?
Who is the one which in yourself
is pushing you to just follow the interest?
A shaitan.
And a shaitan for you could be something
that you but even a shaitan
is working on what?
It's working on your natural state. Right? It's
in you.
So
it's in fact denying God
and only taking the way you are and
stressing on one dimension of your being.
But you understand what I mean is not
to reject everything and say, I understand exactly
what you are saying, but in my system,
this is there.
This is
in zuie nalynas, Hobbeshe Hawat, which is, I'm
following my interests.
And everything which is coming from my truth
is your interests are natural,
your spirituality
is to master them.
It has to do with this: I'm calling
you to mastering, to controlling the self.
Okay?
So
once again,
positioning yourself in your own cosmology
without denying that in the system of the
other, there is something which is right, but
not the way it's central. It's the way
it's at the periphery of the whole system.
What you make central, it's peripheral
for me.
But it's there. I understand that.
Okay, so I'm I'm Can I make a
deadline?
I don't know. I don't
Okay. So keep them, and we'll have time
to talk about
Not on not on that specific, no? So
so you can say something you want? You
want to say I've read it, and, he
offers a kind of third way. But there's
some on discussion. Okay.
A third way. Okay.
Good.
What I was saying,
the verse.
No. What I was mentioning here is that
we have to be very careful.
It's once again your intention.
It's,
your children,
your money,
and your children
are gifts.
And And what you have to do with
the gift is al baqiyat su salihadu. What
is the best is still your good behavior.
It doesn't mean that per se your
money
and your
children
are
negative. They are
becoming
negative
if they
divert you from 2 things:
being with Allah
and doing good.
This is what I'm saying. So sometimes you
look at your own children,
you are so obsessed with their education
that at the end
the love for them
takes precedence
over the love of him,
which is the Abrahamic experience. Be careful.
And then the second is the money
be careful, the money is by the means.
If it becomes
an end, that's the end of it.
Yes? And remember the powerful words of the
prophet
'Likum, Likuli'u'mmatin
fitna wa fitna to ummatinmal.'
My the test for my community is going
to be money.
And if you look at our situation today,
that's the reality of it.
So, because
is it not crazy
to see how much resources
we have
in the Middle East with this,
Gulf States and the way we are
wasting,
corrupting everything,
they have everything that is needed to change
the world for the better.
And it's for Sault Ste. George, the economist,
saying, 'If only these Muslims
were just abiding by their own rules, we
wouldn't have this corrupt
neoliberal system around the world,
killing people through the debt.
That's what she's saying, and saying to Muslims,
'just abide by your own
standards.' Anyway,
another discussion. So,
the promised land.
No, for us
there is no promised land.
The world is for
all the human beings. And then we have
to be very cautious in
there is something in the notion
of promised land, the way they are translating
it, which was in the past coming back
to the origin,
that it's not the property
of the Jews, it's for everybody.
And then what we have here as an
understanding coming from the Koran
is that
it was the moral election.
It's not the Jews the way now the
Zionists are translating this into
a cultural,
racial,
and blood belonging.
And for us, once again, the whole is.
And this is where we have to start
with a clear
religious answer to this. The holy sites
should be open to everyone,
for the Christians, for the Jews, and for
the Muslims.
So it's not to come back as Muslims
and to destroy and to take over.
No. It's to open it up
and to make it and to refuse that
there is something called
a Jewish state only for Jewish people
and no others. So this is
transforming
the moral election
into a physical election,
which is a type of shirk.
And if you end up worshiping the land,
not knowing that this land is for everybody,
this is the very distortion of the Promised
Land. The Promised Land is the source from
where the moral teaching should be taught, and
this is why the Promised Land for all
of us is this coexistence that we need,
and especially an Alqoz.
Al Quds is not for the Muslims
to take over and to deny the rights
of the other. It's exactly the opposite. And
this is where
our promised land should be the shared land,
as the world and the earth should be.
To the point even for ourselves, can you
imagine that among the privileges that the prophet,
was
mentioning for Muslims
was that
the earth, the entire earth is a mosque.
This is why you pray.
So, there is nothing that you can just
reduce
to this.
Al Makkah
is specific because
it's
a space of al Haram. It's
something which is the center of the it's
a mosque which has
specific boundaries here, but
we never are talking about it as the
Promised Land.
We're not talking about this. This is from
where the center, the spiritual teaching should come,
and this is Doreiblas. This is giving us
the direction.
That's a very good question about Ichthyad,
not
because the others were not good questions.
That's
a good question among the good questions. Anyway,
this was not my point.
It's not because I'm opening
up Ishthihar
that I'm making it, you know,
accessible to everybody. No.
When it comes to the texts, the scriptural
sources, I'm quite clear. Not everybody can deal
with the scriptural sources. You cannot do this.
You need to be equipped
as much as when it comes to translating
from the text. So this is why, for
example,
we are taking this notion and we want
to train people on this notion,
on this notion
which is specific. And by the way, if
you are interested, let us know about this
because we want to have we are creating
now a network of students around the world
through the we have CAAN, which is the
Keil alumni network around the world, people who
are following the summer schools that we're having
around the world and trying to create a
network of people
at least sharing some of the principles, and
being able to come to the debate. In
this discussion,
what we are saying is that ishtehad is
not only a legal thing. It's not only
dealing with the text. When it comes to
dealing with the text, of course,
not
all the Muslims, the average Muslim, is not
going to know how to deal with this
text, and you have to be equipped.
But when it comes to the translation
in the world, for example,
you have to be equipped with the world.
So, for example,
how are you going to accept
an ishtihad, a vahalem
in a field where he's not equipped
and he's going to no, we need the
ishtihad of a medical doctor, for example, and
we'll talk about this. And this is normal.
They started to do this in the eighties
with medical physicians and scholars coming together.
So in some issues you need a shared
ishtihad
with collective and shared,
parity councils, for example, where they come together.
And then in some issues, when it comes
to the cosmology,
to the philosophy of life, what we are
talking about here. The oulama, the shuyor, the
folkaha
are not going to do to be able
to make it themselves.
So depending on the field, there are different
types of ishtihad
requirement requiring
different
competences and skills that is going to be
but we need to
add the competences
and not to think that HSDI added only
about the legal. I don't want this reduction
of the concept to the legal.
So, this was your question?
Yes.
So,
what you are saying about civilization,
the Western civilization is ahead,
you have we have 2 ways of
dealing with this,
to look at the West and say, yes,
in
economic,
industrialized,
scientific terms, no one can deny the fact
that the West is ahead.
Lots of means, lots of power,
and by the way, we also now have
to reassess the West, because
very soon in many, many fields what is
coming from Asia, from China, from India, from
Japan,
is competing with what we call the West
now. Where are the Muslims,
and where is the Islamic civilization?
You have 2 ways to think about that.
One way is: they are ahead, let us
enter into the competition and try to be
as good as they are with the same
means,
with the same sciences,
with the same and show, for example, as
we are we will be talking about it
this afternoon or later this morning, about economics,
and we are competing
with the same means
and trying to achieve the same goal.
Or maybe to take a step back and
say:
no, our contribution now, it's not into competing
the waiters,
It's to propose something else, because the way
it is is not good. It's not good
for humanity.
Do we have? So this is another way
of looking at it. My take on this
is what I'm saying is that
what I want us to be as, for
example,
Western Muslims,
It's our contribution and the added value of
our presence.
It's not to compete by showing that we
are
as citizen as the other, as westernized as
the other, very integrated in everything, to the
point that our rate of divorce is exactly
the same, so we are very much integrated.
That's the reality of it. That's the reality
of it, that if you the people are
saying you are not integrating. Just look at
the rates in the divorce. No, the statistics.
We are now coming close.
Welcome.
I'm not going that way.
My point is and by this by by
saying this, I'm not dismissing,
and there is nothing which, in in my
discussion here, is looking at the West in
a decadent way. We I'm a Western
citizen. I I look at my societies
as something which is destroying families, destroying,
the very essence of some common principles that
we have. Where
then, should lie my contribution and the added
value of my presence?
Where?
In something which is questioning the paradigm,
questioning the very essence of what it is,
not waiting for it to collapse, because I'm
going to collapse with it,
but to be
a force within,
questioning, for example, all these discussions that we
have with atheists, agnostics,
or economists, or scientists that are reducing everything
to
the materialistic
side of the
equation. This is what I want.
So do we have this
in fact, today
we have the knowledge,
we have the skills, we have the young
generation,
But too often the young generation
wants to enter within the society. They want
to enter within the society by proving that
they are
acceptable
and they can do as good as the
other.
But that's not my point. I don't want
us to do as good as or as
bad as,
but to do it differently,
to ask other questions, to question the question,
to question the system.
For example, when I was writing the
Arab awakening,
the people wanted me to say, You know
what? We are for democracy, so let us
export the Western democracy there. I'm sorry.
I don't want this Western democracy to go
there, because I live in Western democracy and
have some problem about the real
efficiency of what the democratic
process is in our country, as I said
yesterday, because that's not working as well. We
have to improve. We have to come with
alternatives. Do we have them?
So critical thinking, it's important.
The courage.
This is the only thing that I like
is,
in Obama's contribution,
is the title of a
book, which has to do with audacity.
After this, I left everything coming from him,
everything, because he's the president of words. He's
not the president of the alternative.
It's even worse.
In practical terms, it's even worse. But audacity,
it's you have this courage, this intellectual
audacity that is needed. And to to come
with this? This is where I think your
question is is critical.
It's not to try to catch up. I'm
not catching up.
I'm going somewhere
else. You understand, Mike? That's essential. It's the
cosmology is it's something else that I want.
I want something else. Do we have the
means to propose?
Today, today, look at what we are proposing
in all the fields. We are not proposing
any alternative. There is no bad deal.
There is no bad deal.
So this is where
and you know why I'm saying this.
People are saying, why is all you are
saying it seems that what you are saying
is so nice, so open,
so a philosophy or pluralist, and still they
are attacking you as if you were the
devil.
You know why?
Because listen to what I said yesterday and
today: that's very dangerous.
That's much more dangerous than I saw.
In the way I am, critical from within,
saying we need something else, And we are
confident.
We are not in a state of, you
know it's not an inferiority mindset. I'm not
to be,
waiting for you to say you are good.
I don't care.
So the point here is the way you
position yourself with being assertive with your value,
saying that I know that in the name
of my faith, I cannot accept the world
the way it is. I'm not going to
be accepted in your world. I want something
else. So my critical take on this is:
do we have an alternative? And not only
among Muslims. With all the people of good
faith, all the people who have principles, I'm
with them.
I'm not going to accept corruption. I'm not
going to accept instrumentalization
of religion
within Islam
or outside.
You get this? So when you come with
this,
it's quite dangerous.
And
I don't have a problem being a controversial
intellectual.
If my controversial
presence
is bothering you and pushing you to think
twice,
hamdulillah.
So I think that hamdulillah means praise to
God.
So,
quickly,
that's also a good question that you had
about empirical.
I have a problem with, you know
So it was about the question was, do
we have to separate between what is coming
from the Koran and the empirical truth that
we can find?
I have a problem with those who are
trying to find in the Koran everything
the Koran is not a scientific book,
to start with.
And even in, if you know, there are
things that were known
by the Chinese and the Indian much before.
In fact, in many, for example, when it
comes to,
the 0 coming,
brought through the Indian
and printing
brought through the Chinese,
All this,
we have to acknowledge this. And sometimes the
Muslims in 17th century, they were reading the
Koran and they didn't get all the knowledge.
And now we are thinking about things
that the Koran is revealing itself through our
contemporary knowledge.
But to the point to go in the
Koran and say everything is there, and then
I think that and once again,
it's not a scientific book.
And the scientific truth of today could be
a scientific error tomorrow.
So we keep
on catching up.
So science is saying, oh yes, yes, it's
in the Koran. So it's the truth.
My position on this is to be quite
clear on that.
Nothing in the Koran
is against
science,
But science is not the parameter of the
Koran.
So what I'm saying is that I am
not going to find something in the Koran
which is completely
wrong in scientific terms.
By saying this,
I'm saying that
I'm not proving what we have in sign
through the Koran. I'm just saying it's coming
from
God
And what is
in the text,
whatever is the state of knowledge today, the
scientific state of knowledge, I don't think that
we can find a scientific error in the
Koran.
This is what I think.
Say it again? If I was to, you
know, push the
Yeah. That doesn't fall into
the boundaries of the field of empiricism.
Have you done that? No. No. But, because
there is a difference between
because if I think
that natural laws are coming from God, he's
the first that can do things beyond the
natural law that's my faith.
So
I'm not going to start with this by
saying everything which is no,
it's the other way around. It could be
that we find in the Koran things that
are not proven by science,
but nothing coming from through the scientific discoveries
is going to be against what we find
in the Koran.
My take on science is just to say
there is no
contradiction, but I'm saying again that the Koran
is not a scientific book.
This is why I think
that the moral
teaching should be separated from the empirical science
trying to prove one to the other. I
think that this is completely
a wrong methodology
It's not going to work. But as somebody
who is saying it's coming from God, I
really think that nothing that is coming from
scientific
discovery, you will find something which is, oh,
it's exactly the opposite of what you find
in the Koran. Why? Because the Koran is
not a scientific book, so it's not talking
about that.
It's not. So try to
play with words and try to change, you
know, el mudra it means this because this
is what And even and and even we
have problems today in,
in, for example, bioethics.
And
when it comes
to,
genetics or even embryology,
it's it's tough. It's very tough, what we
have, and not meaning the Quran, because the
Quran is is wider than the discussion. It's
just steps. Nothing is said there. But when
you come to the hadith,
and you have the hadith, 40 days,
120 days, and said, what how it works
in scientific terms that this is why you
have problems. Do we have to take this
as
complete truth? Do you have to suspend your
judgment? Be careful about
the authenticity of every discourse that's something else.
But I agree with you, and I think
it's the starting point of our positioning
not to because, you know, the spirit behind
this is what? It's competition.
Again,
science is there, they are ahead, let us
show them that the Koran is
everything was there.
So, Alan was silent.
So, I think that that's a problem.
Last question here,
which is coming from, and
I say salaam alaikum to the people who
are following us.
It's the link between what I said,
yesterday.
That's exactly it.
The whole and it's a good question by
the way, because it helps us to get
a sense of the construction of the whole
seminar
Understanding
what are the fields within which we speak
about ethics, and how this is
constructed on the sources, the means and the
objectives. Remember, the 3 main fields. And trying
to reconcile
this field through the goals that we are
trying to achieve. This is what we did
yesterday.
All this is going to be connected with
this cosmology that we are talking about. And
the cosmology is saying the source is etawhayil,
lahayil, lahu, so it's
God. The means are not only legal
it's everything which has to do with science,
with a philosophy of law,
and what to do
with knowledge.
So it's the way you understand
in your ishtihad
your accountability
that is coming from the legal.
Etaklif.
So, for example,
in the world,
what the scholars did coming from the legal,
they are saying there are 5 categories.
So the 5,
that have to do with the preferable,
the
obligation,
the permissible,
the preferable, the detestable,
and what is the other one? I forgot.
So there are 5. The prohibited. The prohibited.
The prohibited. The one. Haram. I'm forgetting the
Haram.
You see how much I'm
not haram
don't forget the haram. Anyway,
there are 5. So in this, el agametaklifia,
this is where these
categories are ethicolegal
categories.
Ethical and legal at the same time, and
not only legal. So this is why there
is a connection here, and within this, in
the way you deal within the world with
this cosmology,
you try to achieve and you ask what
is the final goal. And the final goal
of this journey is,
reforming yourself
to the knowledge of God and Allah's love,
loving him, being loved by him, which is
the final thing that you are trying to
achieve
beyond even, beyond even any obsession with
reward and punishment
because this is also something which is important
in the discussion.
And having said that, in this journey
this is where the spiritual input is there.
So, the 3 fields that I was talking
about
they can only be reconciled through the goals
that are part of this understanding of the
whole cosmology.
And this is where
you
come here and you start having an understanding
of in which way you are going to
deal with, for example,
the environment,
and the environment
as the source
and the starting point of the God's gift
as the creation. When he's saying, Sahar al
Hakom, it means he gave you this, he
put this at your disposal,
which is the starting point, this environment,
and then everything that you are doing in
FIRC,
everything that you are doing in the legal
is protecting nature. Everything.
You need to have a legal framework protecting
nature.
So, for example, even if you accept private
property,
no exploitation, no destruction,
respecting.
So, this
is essential here in the way this is
going to be translated in the legal
and even in the spiritual.
Why?
Because
Allahu Jameel you hadbul Jama' God is beautiful
and he likes beauty.
And when he's saying this,
your relationship
to nature is going to be part of
your relationship to culture and your relationship to
arts.
Arts, imagination,
the way you are. For us, arts is
not entertainment
it's elevation.
Through which
channel are you going to get this elevation?
By this cosmology,
where you have
this dimension of this nature and this environment.
There is a connection between the way you
look at the environment and the way you
look at art and imagination.
So and consumption,
and then elevation, and then being, and then
purification,
and then reforming yourself.
Sorry. So, all this is connected. So, you
understand why
environment comes first in the whole
discussion that I was
starting.
I don't think I don't know if you
have because there are other questions. Can we
keep it for
Quickly. Quickly, then.
Yeah.
That's another big question.
But there is a philosophy here. So
the question is
how practical
tips I can give you about how do
you
master your consumption.
This is a nice way of putting it.
Is it this or not? Yes. Why are
you laughing?
Why are you laughing?
So what was your your word?
It's okay. The one who is mine. No.
I want yours.
How do you live in a I'm repeating,
in a materialistic
world? And then? How do you be aware
how to be aware of our conception?
Ah, to be aware of our conception.
I think that
once again
come to the big picture.
And what is,
you know,
it's
about who you are
and what you need.
And there is something which is essential.
La Illa Illa Allah in a cosmological
way is saying, your only
dependency
is to God.
Any
other addiction
could be potential shirk.
So the starting point is, in
the capitalistic
economic system, is to create addiction.
And addiction is undermining the very essence of
Tawhid.
So anything that is working against
the liberation of yourself is putting you in
danger.
This is the start this is the big
picture. And then you have to check your
need
through who you are.
And be careful:
fashion,
publicity,
advertisement
is to create in you the need
for things that you may not need.
Creating this.
So, ah, this is it. So it's
in the practical term, it's very much to
start with this. This step is no addiction.
My freedom should be protected. And what
do I need
for my life?
And the third thing which is important here,
it's also something which has to do with
no excess.
You know, I'm very often saying to Muslims
it's good to eat halal meat
if only you were to eat less meat.
Less. You don't have to eat so much
meat as we are doing,
because
I'm not, you know, advocating
vegetarianism.
But why not?
Halal vegetarianism.
But at least to eat less meat, to
be very you know, this is the way
the prophet Isaiah was always saying, Be careful.
Don't eat too much. It's not good for
your health.
Don't eat too much meat. Just
and this is something which is
this intellectual
conscious
con contentious,
conscientious
attitude
that you have towards,
the things that you are eating, it's important.
For example,
you know what is haram, and you don't
drink alcohol,
I hope.
You don't eat pork,
that's fine.
But there are other things that you also
have to to deal with in the global
order.
It might be that there are things that
the whole philosophy behind is creating maybe addictions
in others that you might also have to
show that this is not right. And sometimes
you know, for example,
that for me,
if you are asking me about,
halal fast food,
for me it's a contradiction in term.
Fast food is by definition something that I
cannot get as something which is an Islamic
way of life.
To eat fast is not the right way
to eat.
So if you put it halal to make
it, you know,
as you have in Malaysia, say, you know,
they
have halal meat and
the sisters
are having the hijab, masha'Allah.
So it's halal, you enter Bismillah and eat
very fast.
So the old chain is problematic.
I, for example
and
I'm not pushing for that.
Yes, a bit I'm pushing for that,
But it's a personal fatwa. But at the
end I can tell you something.
In the way you deal with things, it
gives you a sense that you have limitation
it pushes you to think twice about what
you are eating.
I don't enter McDonald's.
You will never see me in a McDonald's,
for many reasons:
the philosophy behind,
the way they deal with people, and what
is translated in the ground. For me for
me,
it's a personal fatwa. It's haram haram.
I don't enter in this.
I don't go these these things. I'm avoiding
all the fast foods because I don't like
the philosophy behind.
These are destroying the very essence of what
it means to eat
and what it means to eat in family,
to be together,
and to take time with the culture and
everything.
I prefer to come with the way
you were eating in Pakistan,
and to colonize,
and to be the added value,
to take time to eat with your family,
take time to prepare,
take time to talk, take time to discuss,
instead of let us go, the whole family
quickly, just a McDonald's before movies.
It's a philosophy of life.
So this is why you check things. You
know, you understand what I mean? It's deeper
than tell me the fatwa haral
because some are going out of this room
saying, you know what he said?
Haram.
They don't get the whole picture.
You understand?
I want so
the haram for me, it's not the legal
answer to the detail.
It's the meaning of it within the big
picture. Who are you supporting?
What are you doing?
When you know, for example, the transnational
corporations
are launching
war, psychological
war, against
cultural way of eating and drinking,
And they come with their ad ads and
say, you know what?
Coca Cola is a way of life.
And you know what? It's true.
It's a way of life.
And you today, you don't care.
Stop hard on. Is no scholar who has
told you, don't drink alcohol. They even drink,
Coca
Cola, the Sheikh. You have some Sheikh Bismillah?
I don't drink. I don't drink these things.
I don't.
Why I don't drink these things? Because at
the same time, it sent to my mind,
to my heart,
a sense of be careful with these things,
because the danger is here. It might not
be legally
haram. It's philosophically
wrong.
It's wrong. There is
a Mastering
your your consumption,
is what I meant.
It might be it might not be legally
haram, but it's what? It's legal.
Yes. That's it.
Sometimes it comes like this. Okay.