Birds and other animals have free will, thoughts, self-awareness and feelings. I don’t eat or murder pigs, but I also don’t eat or murder any animals, because animals are people, too, like us. If there were no animals killing other animals, animals would not over populate the earth. There is a limit to how large any population can grow, and the limit is defined by how much vegetation is available. If there are too many animals, they will eat up the vegetation until some of the animals will die from starvation. The population will drop a little, and go back up, and drop again, and go back up again, ultimately staying close to a specific amount of rabbits, sheep, pigs, cows etc. All of these whom are people who communicate with each other, have social bonds, experience love for their children and comrades. There was a time where the great-great-great-great… grand parents of lions and tigers and all cats could taste sugar and probably ate fruit. But some kittens were born with genetic mutations (like some humans are born too high or too tall, or without the ability to feel pain, or with joints that can bend the wrong way etc.; some cats are even born with thumbs these days) and now theses cats can no longer taste sugar, so they seek amino acids instead. Similarly, there was a fish who had strong jaws to cut strong fibres, but due to vegetation disappearing, they started desperately eating other fish, and even eating humans, in order to stay alive. If it’s not evil that a lion eats a gazelle to stay alive, or a fish eats a human to stay alive; it’s not evil if a human eats a human to stay alive. But if I’m in a forest with another human being, I will rather eat the plants in the forest than the other human being. Or if there was a pig, I would rather eat the plants. Or if there was a sheep or a chicken, I would rather eat the plants to stay alive. Even if someone had already killed and cooked a chicken, it’s still the dead corpse of a person to me, and I would find it disgusting and still choose the plants. Never will I put a person (or an animal who’s also a person) into my stomach, if I have vegetables and fruits and legumes available. But I don’t think there is any good or evil involved in making a decision in a famine. You’re just trying to stay alive… and life is the right of all people: humans and animals. I also don’t think evil needs to exist for goodness to exist. Nor do humans need ranks. We’re all just people, we’re all just trying to learn from life. In reality, if we really want to think I terms of duality, we should be thinking about consideration vs inconsideration. Helping others vs not helping others. Being good vs being neutral. In a perfect world, evil does not exist, yet good exists without evil. What then causes evil? Unfortunate circumstances. A thief steals bread or water because he has no money and is about to die if he doesn’t steal. Should he get his hand cut off? No. Instead, offer him a job so he doesn’t have to steal anymore. A murder kills because he’s sick, or because he’s angry and want revenge, or because he has a belief that he thinks justifies killing someone else. It is never justifiable to kill anyone, unless they’re trying to kill you and you’re only defending yourself. But are they evil? They’re just seduced by revenge or by their belief, or they’re sick in their brains, all of which should only be solved by taking them out from society so they can’t do any harm: put them in jail. But if you kill someone who killed, you have now added +1 more to the number of dead people, and you are now as guilty as that person you killed. Unless he tried to kill you and you killed him first out of self defence. But if you already captured the person, you’re basically kicking a man who’s already lying down, which is NOT defence but offence. If you have secured your own survival, and the other person is still alive, lock him up. That way you will have avoided to add +1 to the death count, and you will have avoided becoming a murder yourself. Self-defense is okay. But revenge is unnecessary and will turn yourself into your enemy. It’s stopping down to their level, which is an insult to yourself. Revenge is always wrong. My message is that, in most cases, humans are not evil, but seduced or convinced of something. And if you can convince them not to steal (by giving them the job hey don’t have), or not to kill (by calming them down, or telling them how no belief can justify killing someone), you can prevent the tragedy of these crimes, because crimes are tragedies, not evil. And in the very unfortunate situation that the person is sick in their mind, they were born sick, and it’s not their fault they cause tragedies, so they’re still not evil. But jail was invented to get rid of tragedy. So if you know someone who’s sick, or is angry or has beliefs that you know will lead to the death or rape or theft of someone, you tell the police so they can come and prevent the tragedy. So I don’t believe in evil. I only believe in tragedies, and that people commit crimes because they’re poor, emotional, or believe they have a justification. And I believe that their minds can be changed, and if not, we can lock them up before the crime happens. And I also don’t judge sick people who were born with sick minds, but I’d still lock up any potential threat.
True free-will is not possessed by animals because they stick to their natural path. Unlike humans who are able to take other paths. If all creatures ate vegetation only it would imbalance the ecosystem and lead to their extinction, it takes time for vegetation to regrow, by that time the animals would starve. Everything submits and plays its role. Unlike human beings, some of whom submit and others who seek to worship their desires, and assign greatness unto themselves. Is it justice to lock up people for crimes they have not committed simply because we think they would commit a crime? Many innocent people would suffer? In practice, we need deterrents against crime. Stronger deterrents work best (the threat of a harsh penalty is sufficient even if we have quite an impossibly high threshold of conditions that must all be met before that penalty could be actualised. A few criminals having to pay the price for a peaceful society is better than a whole society suffering for the comfort of a few criminals, which only breeds more crime). Theory is one thing, practice is another. The theory of evolution being fanatically used to explain absolutely everything is just a smoke screen. Evolution has no will of its own. Our hearts know that good and evil exists. That is why you strive for what is good. The good in us is not from us. Rather, it points to a reality. It points to The Real. And we have not only been provided for our physical needs by The Real, but also our spiritual needs. Seek, and you shall find.
سبحان الله العظيم..الحمد الله ❣️
great talk sheikh. jazakum Allahu khair
Best teachet
Amazing talk.
I thought animals had free will but angels didn't
animals? free will?
they are solely dependent on their instincts
Birds and other animals have free will, thoughts, self-awareness and feelings. I don’t eat or murder pigs, but I also don’t eat or murder any animals, because animals are people, too, like us.
If there were no animals killing other animals, animals would not over populate the earth. There is a limit to how large any population can grow, and the limit is defined by how much vegetation is available. If there are too many animals, they will eat up the vegetation until some of the animals will die from starvation. The population will drop a little, and go back up, and drop again, and go back up again, ultimately staying close to a specific amount of rabbits, sheep, pigs, cows etc. All of these whom are people who communicate with each other, have social bonds, experience love for their children and comrades.
There was a time where the great-great-great-great… grand parents of lions and tigers and all cats could taste sugar and probably ate fruit. But some kittens were born with genetic mutations (like some humans are born too high or too tall, or without the ability to feel pain, or with joints that can bend the wrong way etc.; some cats are even born with thumbs these days) and now theses cats can no longer taste sugar, so they seek amino acids instead. Similarly, there was a fish who had strong jaws to cut strong fibres, but due to vegetation disappearing, they started desperately eating other fish, and even eating humans, in order to stay alive.
If it’s not evil that a lion eats a gazelle to stay alive, or a fish eats a human to stay alive; it’s not evil if a human eats a human to stay alive.
But if I’m in a forest with another human being, I will rather eat the plants in the forest than the other human being. Or if there was a pig, I would rather eat the plants. Or if there was a sheep or a chicken, I would rather eat the plants to stay alive. Even if someone had already killed and cooked a chicken, it’s still the dead corpse of a person to me, and I would find it disgusting and still choose the plants. Never will I put a person (or an animal who’s also a person) into my stomach, if I have vegetables and fruits and legumes available.
But I don’t think there is any good or evil involved in making a decision in a famine. You’re just trying to stay alive… and life is the right of all people: humans and animals.
I also don’t think evil needs to exist for goodness to exist. Nor do humans need ranks. We’re all just people, we’re all just trying to learn from life. In reality, if we really want to think I terms of duality, we should be thinking about consideration vs inconsideration. Helping others vs not helping others. Being good vs being neutral. In a perfect world, evil does not exist, yet good exists without evil.
What then causes evil?
Unfortunate circumstances.
A thief steals bread or water because he has no money and is about to die if he doesn’t steal. Should he get his hand cut off? No. Instead, offer him a job so he doesn’t have to steal anymore. A murder kills because he’s sick, or because he’s angry and want revenge, or because he has a belief that he thinks justifies killing someone else. It is never justifiable to kill anyone, unless they’re trying to kill you and you’re only defending yourself. But are they evil? They’re just seduced by revenge or by their belief, or they’re sick in their brains, all of which should only be solved by taking them out from society so they can’t do any harm: put them in jail. But if you kill someone who killed, you have now added +1 more to the number of dead people, and you are now as guilty as that person you killed. Unless he tried to kill you and you killed him first out of self defence. But if you already captured the person, you’re basically kicking a man who’s already lying down, which is NOT defence but offence. If you have secured your own survival, and the other person is still alive, lock him up. That way you will have avoided to add +1 to the death count, and you will have avoided becoming a murder yourself. Self-defense is okay. But revenge is unnecessary and will turn yourself into your enemy. It’s stopping down to their level, which is an insult to yourself. Revenge is always wrong.
My message is that, in most cases, humans are not evil, but seduced or convinced of something. And if you can convince them not to steal (by giving them the job hey don’t have), or not to kill (by calming them down, or telling them how no belief can justify killing someone), you can prevent the tragedy of these crimes, because crimes are tragedies, not evil. And in the very unfortunate situation that the person is sick in their mind, they were born sick, and it’s not their fault they cause tragedies, so they’re still not evil. But jail was invented to get rid of tragedy. So if you know someone who’s sick, or is angry or has beliefs that you know will lead to the death or rape or theft of someone, you tell the police so they can come and prevent the tragedy.
So I don’t believe in evil. I only believe in tragedies, and that people commit crimes because they’re poor, emotional, or believe they have a justification. And I believe that their minds can be changed, and if not, we can lock them up before the crime happens. And I also don’t judge sick people who were born with sick minds, but I’d still lock up any potential threat.
True free-will is not possessed by animals because they stick to their natural path. Unlike humans who are able to take other paths. If all creatures ate vegetation only it would imbalance the ecosystem and lead to their extinction, it takes time for vegetation to regrow, by that time the animals would starve. Everything submits and plays its role. Unlike human beings, some of whom submit and others who seek to worship their desires, and assign greatness unto themselves.
Is it justice to lock up people for crimes they have not committed simply because we think they would commit a crime? Many innocent people would suffer?
In practice, we need deterrents against crime. Stronger deterrents work best (the threat of a harsh penalty is sufficient even if we have quite an impossibly high threshold of conditions that must all be met before that penalty could be actualised. A few criminals having to pay the price for a peaceful society is better than a whole society suffering for the comfort of a few criminals, which only breeds more crime). Theory is one thing, practice is another. The theory of evolution being fanatically used to explain absolutely everything is just a smoke screen. Evolution has no will of its own. Our hearts know that good and evil exists. That is why you strive for what is good. The good in us is not from us. Rather, it points to a reality. It points to The Real. And we have not only been provided for our physical needs by The Real, but also our spiritual needs. Seek, and you shall find.