Circumventing Moral Relativism

Circumventing Moral Relativism

Dr. Mohd Sani b. Badron
Fellow Kanan

24/11/2009 | The Star

Our previous article ("Adab defines Islamic education") has clarified how adab manifests the beautification of ethics, whose fundamentals are ultimately based upon the worldview of Islam. This directly contradicts one of the integrals of secularization, namely the "relativization of all human values".

Islam disagrees with a secular view that each and every value system is relative to human opinions and personal beliefs. Relativism denies that there are ultimate and final values, ethical rules and codes of conduct.

Secularist is of the opinion that every value system is transient and open to change with the times and generations. "Deconsecration of values" implies that man shall remove all religious support from ethics; secularization claims that mankind has an absolute freedom to change moral values, all on his own.

Moreover, relativism denies that right and wrong are objective. For secularist, right and wrong are of human's making; ethics merely consists in inventing right and wrong. Indeed, there is a book by J. L. Mackie which is titled Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong.

Relativism may be illustrated by the following humorous anecdote: Once, Mulla Nasruddin, was acting as a judge. Two men came to him looking for fair decision. The plaintiff's lawyer put forth a strong reasoning, and Nasruddin said: "Yes, you are right." But later, the defendant's lawyer presented powerful argument of his case, and Nasruddin said: "Yes, you are also right." Court's Registrar, who was witnessing the situation, said with amazement: "I just cannot understand you, my lord. Both the plaintiff and respondent could never be right at the same time." In a state of desperation, Nasruddin replied: "You are right too."

Contrary to relativism, Islam understands ethics as akhlaq (which is the plural of khuluq), refering to the moulding of man's nature according to which he is created by Allah. In fact, Islam identifies khuluq with fitrah-that is, a natural religious disposition of which human being is created-or with tabi‘ah, i.e. an innate temper with which human being is created.

To be ethical is not to invent right and wrong, but rather to be in harmony with human's purity of being and spirituality.

This original sense of khuluq is very relevant to the Qur'anic verse: "By the Soul, and the proportion and order given to it" (al-Shams, 91: 7). ‘Allamah ‘Abdullah Yusuf Ali clarifies that "Allah creates the soul, and gives it order, proportion, and relative perfection, in order to adapt it for the particular circumstances, in which it has to live its life. God breathes into it an understanding of what is sin, impiety, wrongdoing and what is piety and right conduct, in the special circumstances in which it may be placed."

Thus, in contrast to the cognate term khalq, which is used to refer to the fashioning of the "outer man" with its peculiar qualities and attributes, ethics (khuluq) is primarily used to mean the moral character of the "inner man"-i.e. his intellect or soul, with its peculiar qualities and attributes.

Hence, Islamic ethics signify one's habit in its capacity as one's "second nature". The aforementioned meaning is illustrated clearly in the Qur'an, to the effect that the Prophet Muhammad "stands on an exalted standard of character (khuluq ‘azim)" in reference to the very core of his being (al-Qalam, 68: 4).

There is also the prophetic Tradition that "nothing is heavier in the mizan than goodness of the moral character (husn al-khuluq)." The mizan refers to eschatological Balance in which good and evil actions of every human being will be weighed in the Afterlife.

Another tradition narrated by Sayyidah ‘A'ishah emphasized the fact that whereto the Prophet Muhammad clung was the Qur'an, including its rules of discipline (adab), its commands and prohibitions, as well as the excellence and beauties and gracious things comprised in it. Our previous article has also mentioned another relevant fundamental fact, that the Qur'an is a means (ma'dabah) which God has prepared in the earth for men's learning right and wrong.

As such, it is clear that Islamic ethics as well as good discipline of the mind were based on what is taught by Allah through the Qur'an, which was immediately translated into a living reality intimately and profoundly lived in the experience of the Prophet Muhammad, whom the first community of the believers emulated. The Qur'an and the Prophet thus guide the next generations of Muslim by their confirming and affirming this prophetic example in their lives, just as the first community had exemplified earlier.

Even when later in history the Muslims' rule expanded to become a great civilization encountering other world cultures, such a basic structure of Islamic ethics and intellectual discipline remained intact. This made it possible for Muslims to approve and appropriate those traditions and elements which did not contradict such a super-structure of universal Qur'anic teachings, regardless whether it was of pre-Islamic Arabic, Persian, Greek, or any other origin.


http://www.ikim.gov.my/v5/index.php?lg=1&opt=com_article&grp=2&sec=&key=1913&cmd=resetall

Tajdid? Or Biadab?

Sekitar Rakaman Al-Kuliyyah: Antara Adab dan Biadab
Abdul Muntaqim Zulkipli

Malam tadi (19 November 2009), saya mengikuti sesi rakaman rancangan Al-Kuliyyah (TV3) di Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur. Sesi kali ini agak menarik, dengan tajuk “1 Akidah” rancangan kali ini menampilkan Al-Fadhil Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady, Dr. Mohd. Asri Zainul Abidin dan Dr. Fauzi Deraman. Perbincangan yang bertajuk “1 Akidah” ternyata banyak berkisar sekitar persoalan tentang adab, tentang perbezaan pendapat. Itupun, tidak sepenuhnya perbincangan itu bersifat ilmiah. Apa yang pasti, Dr. Mohd. Asri Zainul Abidin dan Dr. Fauzi Deraman mengecewakan. Sikap dan kata-kata mereka ternyata menggambarkan suatu kebiadaban; apa yang diistilahkan oleh Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady sebagai fenomena “kebiadaban intelektual”.

Perbezaan pendapat adalah suatu lumrah yang tidak mungkin boleh dielakkan. Justeru, menurut Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady, dalam ajaran Islam telahpun disiapkan panduan dan pedoman untuk menangani perbezaan pendapat tersebut. Sepertimana yang telah difirmankan oleh Allah Subhanahu wa ta’ala di dalam kitab suci Al-Qur’an, kita hendaklah mengikuti jalan orang-orang yang beriman (sabiilil-mu’minin); yakni, kita hendaklah patuh kepada ijma’ ‘ulama – kesepakatan majoriti ‘ulama. Beliau menghuraikan, ini maksudnya kita hendaklah taat kepada ajaran Islam arus perdana. Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady memetik di dalam kitab Fathul Bari yang menyatakan bahawa imam-imam yang muktabar di dalam Ahli Sunnah wal Jamaah adalah perlu ditaati sama ada dari segi aqidah, syariat mahupun akhlak. Jika adapun perbezaan pendapat, maka hal itu haruslah ditangani secara cermat dan dengan penuh adab.

Apa yang disampaikan oleh Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady tersebut ternyata merupakan satu panduan yang penting kerana apa yang sedang berlaku di dalam negara ini pada hari ini adalah sikap segelintir “kaum muda” (Salafi, Wahabi, gerakan Tajdid, atau apa sahaja namanya) yang cuba melawan ‘arus perdana’. Amalan dan pegangan umat Islam di negara ini, yang merupakan amalan dan pegangan arus perdana yang telah disusun hasil kesepakatan para ‘ulama, cuba dicabar tanpa kita memahami apakah maksud sebenar di sebaliknya. Kelihatannya, hanyalah kerana mereka itu inginkan publisiti dan ingin menjadi jaguh yang dikenali di dalam masyarakat. Apakah ada keperluan amalan membaca doa qunut yang telah lama diamalkan oleh masyarakat negara ini dilawan? Apakah ada keperluan amalan membuat majlis tahlil arwah diharamkan? Apakah ada keperluan Selawat Syifa’ yang sangat masyhur di kalangan masyarakat negara ini dikatakan amalan yang salah? Itu semua adalah amalan yang datangnya melalui ajaran arus perdana di negara ini, yang semuanya ada dalil dan nas yang menyebabkan para ‘ulama mengajar amalan-amalan tersebut.

Dr. Mohd. Asri Zainul Abidin (MAZA) kemudian menyebut tentang sikap majoriti para imam mazhab, yang menyuruh agar ditinggalkan pendapatnya apabila ada dalil yang sahih yang bercanggah dengan pendapatnya. Hal itu, menurutnya, menjadi bukti betapa para imam menghormati dalil dan nas. Dr. MAZA juga menyebut bahawa adalah penting untuk menghormati pandangan para ‘ulama muktabar; apa yang diistilahkan di dalam usul fiqh sebagai ijma’ ‘ulama. Dr. MAZA juga menyentuh tentang masalah fanatik mazhab. Sehinggakan, katanya, hanya kerana berbeza pandangan seseorang itu boleh dihukum sesat, biadap dan sebagainya.

Hal ini telahpun disanggah dengan mudahnya oleh Al-Fadhil Ustaz Yusri Mohd. melalui soalan beliau kepada Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady. Kata-kata para imam mazhab bahawa “apabila bertemu dalil yang sahih hendaklah ditinggalkan pendapatku” adalah kata-kata khusus yang ditujukan kepada para ‘ulama jua, dan bukannya kepada orang awam seperti kita semua. Kata-kata tersebut ditujukan khusus kepada para ‘ulama yang berkapasiti untuk membuat ijtihad. Mana mungkin masyarakat awam, ataupun sesiapa sahaja yang mempelajari ilmu agama tetapi tidak sampai ke tahap mujtahid, untuk membuat ijtihad sendiri apabila bertemu sahaja hadith sahih (atau yang dikatakan sahih) di dalam kitab-kitab mahupun buku-buku. Apakah ada jaminan interpretasi mereka terhadap maksud hadith itu betul? Apakah mereka faham benar konteks kegunaan hadith tersebut? Harus diingat bahawa hadith itu datangnya dengan konteks yang tertentu. Kerana itu kita banyak bertemu hadith-hadith yang kelihatannya seperti bercanggah antara satu sama lain, tetapi sebenarnya tidak kerana konteksnya berbeza. Cukup menghairankan apabila Dr. MAZA menekankan tentang perlunya kita patuh kepada ijma’ ‘ulama, tetapi dia sendiri menentang aliran arus perdana (yang merupakan hasil ijma’ ‘ulama) di negara ini; seperti contoh, dia mempertikaikan dan memperlekeh majlis maulid, memperlekeh al-Fadhil Syeikh Jaafar al-Barzanji (bacaan Maulid Barzanji – disebut ‘berzanji’ oleh orang Melayu – telah lama diamalkan di negara ini), dan sebagainya yang mana semuanya adalah perkara-perkara yang dipersetujui oleh para ‘ulama. Jika adapun pandangan berbeza, maka itu adalah perbezaan pendapat yang tidak wajar dan tidak patut dijadikan polemik di dalam masyarakat! Hormatilah apa yang telah disusun oleh para ‘ulama terdahulu untuk kesejahteraan umat Islam di negara ini!

Pensyarah di Akademi Pengajian Islam Universiti Malaya (APIUM), Dr. Fauzi Deraman kemudiannya menyatakan bahawa semua orang, termasuk para ‘ulama, adalah tertakluk kepada ayat Al-Qur’an yang menyatakan bahawa kita semua tidak dikurniakan pengetahuan melainkan sedikit. Justeru, Al-Qur’an juga mengajarkan kita agar “bertanyalah kepada ahlinya jika kamu tidak mengetahui”. Menurutnya, setiap orang ada bidang kepakaran masing-masing dan bidang tersebut harus dihormati. Tentang fenomena masa kini di mana semakin ramai orang awam yang turut melibatkan diri dalam perbincangan terbuka tentang hal-hal agama yang sebenarnya bukan bidang mereka, Dr. Fauzi Deraman menyatakan bahawa orang awam tidaklah wajar disalahkan sepenuhnya kerana orang awam mengikuti ‘mentor’ mereka. Maka, apa yang penting adalah orang awam harus dididik dan diberikan panduan yang betul. Apa yang dikatakan oleh Dr. Fauzi Deraman ternyata benar. Namun, apa yang berlaku pada hari ini adalah orang sudah tidak menghormati autoriti. Dalam hal agama sebagai contoh, semakin ramai orang sudah tidak lagi menghormati autoriti kerana terpengaruh dengan sikap segelintir orang muda yang kononnya berilmu, mungkin kerana memilik Ph.D. lalu memakai gelaran ‘Doktor’ di hadapan namanya, yang dengan sewenang-wenangnya mempersoal dan mempertikaikan pendapat para ‘ulama sedangkan mereka bukanlah orang yang layak untuk melakukan hal yang sedemikian. Ada juga di kalangan para ilmuan sombong ini yang mengatakan diri mereka, ataupun mengatakan ‘ulama ikutan mereka, sebagai pakar hadith dan memakai gelar ‘Al-Muhaddith’ sedangkan antara syarat untuk seseorang itu digelar ‘Al-Muhaddith’ adalah ia haruslah menghafal 100,000 hadith! Itu belum termasuk syarat mempunyai dan menghafal sanad hadith. Sedangkan golongan ‘ulama sombong ini menolak amalan pemberian ijazah hadith; maka mana mungkin mereka menjadi pakar hadith!

Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady memberikan satu peringatan yang ringkas tetapi penuh makna; bahawa setiap urusan itu haruslah diserahkan kepada ahlinya. Peringatan daripada Allah Subhanahu wa ta’ala agar kita merujuk kepada ahlinya dan tidak memandai-mandai. Justeru, dalam soal memberikan pandangan, sepertimana yang dipraktikkan oleh para salafussoleh, hendaknya para ‘ulama itu berbincang di dalam wacana “para ‘ulama” untuk mendapatkan kesepakatan – dengan mengambil kira semua faktor – sebelum akhirnya keputusan itu disalurkan kepada orang ramai. Apa yang berlaku pada hari ini adalah kita terpengaruh dengan wacana ala pasca-modenisme, yang menganggap semua wacana adalah sama – atas nama ‘kebebasan bersuara’.

Penekanan yang diberikan oleh Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady ini, walaupun ringkas, tetapi adalah sangat fundamental. Apa yang disebutkan adalah tentang hal adab. Hal ini demikian kerana tidak semua orang mempunyai kelayakan untuk membincangkan semua perkara. Perkara-perkara yang berkaitan dengan pengajian ‘aqidah, berkaitan dengan fiqh dan akhlak, yang sudah tentu akan ditemukan banyak perbezaan pendapat tentangnya, adalah perkara-perkara yang tidak wajar, tidak patut dan tidak perlu untuk dibincangkan di dalam wacana terbuka di tengah-tengah masyarakat yang rata-ratanya tidak berkeahlian dalam hal ilmu Islam. Justeru, di situlah peranan para ‘ulama untuk menyusun dan menyepakati apakah kaedah, pendekatan, amalan, dan sebagainya yang patut diketengahkan kepada masyarakat. Itulah yang dilakukan oleh para imam mazhab dan para mujtahidin. Mereka meneliti dalil dan menyusun amalan-amalan dalam agama agar mudah diikuti oleh orang awam; agar tidak perlu lagi orang awam melalui proses penelitian dalil kerana tidak semua orang berkapasiti untuk memahami dengan benar dalil Al-Qur’an dan Al-Hadith, apatah lagi untuk mencapai tahap mujtahid! Tindakan membawa wacana yang berkaitan dengan penentuan asas-asas serta amalan-amalan dalam agama ke tengah kancah masyarakat, hanyalah akan menyebabkan berlaku kecelaruan kerana masyarakat akan mula keliru, dan lebih teruk lagi sudah mula muncul di tengah-tengah masyarakat golongan muda (khususnya) yang dengan beraninya berwacana menggunakan nama-nama ‘ulama seperti Imam Syafie, Imam Ibnu Hajar Al-Asqalani dan sebagainya, sedangkan mereka hanyalah ‘berguru’ dengan Internet ataupun dengan membaca sendiri buku-buku para ‘ulama tersebut. Jika adapun guru tempat merujuk, hanyalah seorang atau dua orang guru-guru yang tidak mempunyai susur galur ilmu yang mantap. Hal ini berlaku kerana melihatkan wacana-wacana yang semakin banyak dibincangkan secara terbuka, sehingga mereka merasakan bahawa sesiapa sahaja layak untuk membincangkan persoalan agama.

Bagaimanapun, Dr. MAZA seolah-olah gagal memahami apa yang cuba disampaikan oleh Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady. Dia memetik hadith yang menyatakan bahawa Allah akan membangkitkan seorang ‘mujaddid’ (pembaharu urusan agama) pada setiap 100 tahun. Dia menyentuh tentang bagaimana urusan membaharui urusan agama ini telah dilakukan oleh semua mujaddid, biarpun ditentang hebat. Dia menyebut cabaran-cabaran yang dihadapi oleh Imam Ahmad, Imam Syafie dan sebagainya dalam menyatakan kebenaran. Saya tertanya-tanya, apakah dia mahu menyamakan dirinya dengan Imam Ahmad dan Imam Syafie? Dia menyebut contoh-contoh itu sebagai menyatakan bahawa dirinya juga perlu melakukan ‘tajdid’ (membaharui urusan agama) biarpun sukar diterima. Namun, sekali lagi, perlu diperhatikan siapakah Imam Ahmad dan siapakah Imam Syafie? Mereka adalah ornag yang diberikan pembukaan oleh Allah Subhanahu wa ta’ala, sehingga mempunyai keluasan ilmu yang hebat. Sekiranya salah seorang daripada mereka masih hidup pada hari ini, maka tidaklah keterlaluan jika dikatakan adalah wajib bagi seluruh umat Islam di dunia ini mematuhinya sebagai rujukan utama masa kini! Siapalah Dr. MAZA jika hendak dibandingkan dengan Imam Syafie, Imam Ahmad? Juga, harus diperhatikan apakah yang diperjuangkan oleh imam-imam besar itu sama seperti apa yang diperjuangkan oleh Dr. MAZA? Imam Syafie dan Imam Ahmad berjuang untuk membetulkan ‘aqidah umat Islam (diulangi: ‘aqidah), kerana tanpa ‘aqidah yang betul boleh jatuh kufur seseorang itu. Sedangkan di negara ini kita sudah mempunyai suatu susunan amalan dan pegangan yang betul, tidak perlu lagi dipertikaikan!

Dr. MAZA kemudiannya menyatakan, sebagai membantah pandangan Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady, bahawa sekiranya dia perlu berbincang dahulu sebelum menyampaikan pandangannya, maka tidak akan berlakulah “sampaikan daripadaku walaupun sepotong ayat”. Saya dan rakan-rakan di pentas penonton hanya mampu menepuk dahi dek kerana lemahnya hujah yang digunakan oleh dia. Hadith tersebut bukan untuk hal tajdid! Jika hadith tersebut adalah berkaitan dengan hal tajdid, maka mudah sangatlah proses tajdid itu dan tidak perlulah dibangkitkan seorang mujaddid kerana sesiapa sahaja boleh melakukannya! Juga, apa yang dimaksudkan oleh Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady agar diadakan perbincangan di peringkat para ‘ulama terlebih dahulu bukanlah maksudnya agar jangan dilakukan dakwah! Maksud beliau adalah supaya perkara-perkara khilaf, perkara-perkara yang berkaitan dengan dasar, dengan pendekatan dan sebagainya, dibincangkan secara ilmiah terlebih dahulu di kalangan para ‘ulama, agar para ‘ulama yang berkeahlian itu dapat memutuskan apakah dia yang paling sesuai untuk disalurkan kepada masyarakat. Hal ini demikian kerana masyarakat tidak berkeahlian untuk menentukan bagi diri mereka sendiri apakah yang patut atau tidak, apa yang benar atau tidak. Nah, bukankah di dalam wacana para ‘ulama itu masih ada peluang untuk ‘menyampaikan daripada Rasulullah walaupun sepotong ayat’. Keluarkanlah apa sahaja dalil dan nas yang diketahui di dalam wacana para ‘ulama kerana memang sifat wacana itu ilmiah. Mengapa harus dibawa kepada masyarakat? Adakah kerana ingin dikenali, ingin dilihat sebagai jaguh? Jika benar ingin manfaat dan faedah bagi masyarakat, bukankah pandangan dan usaha ijma’ ‘ulama itu lebih kukuh dan lebih baik daripada usaha beberapa kerat individu? Logik ini terlalu mudah, hanya mereka yang tertutup minda dan hatinya sahaja yang akan gagal memahaminya.

Dr. Fauzi Deraman pula menyatakan bahawa perselisihan (dalam hal dasar agama) tidak berlaku di zaman Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, kerana ada kaitannya dengan metodologi pada zaman itu. Saya mungkin boleh bersetuju dengan kenyataan itu kerana memang ada kebenarannya. Namun, sebab utama mengapa tidak berlakunya perselisihan pada zaman tersebut adalah semata-mata kerana baginda Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam! Baginda adalah ikutan ulung para sahabat, baginda adalah contoh, baginda adalah rujukan utama! Para sahabat patuh dan taat kepada baginda Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam tanpa soal: ini dinamakan taqlid! Benar, dalam Islam ada kebenaran untuk taqlid, bagi orang yang tidak mampu berijtihad seperti kita semua! Jika ada yang ingin menyanggah dengan mengatakan bahawa bertaqlid dengan Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam sahaja yang boleh, maka ketahuilah bahawa Rasulullah telah mengiktiraf generasi salafussoleh, para Khulafa’ Ar-Rasyidiin dan Ahlul Bait sebagai kelompok yang harus kita ikuti dan contohi.

Namun, saya ternyata tidak bersetuju dengan kenyataan Dr. Fauzi Deraman yang menyatakan bahawa para sahabat tidaklah belajar banyak sangat tentang ‘aqidah. Kenyataan itu ternyata adalah suatu kenyataan yang sangat biadap! Para sahabat adalah mereka yang paling ‘arif tentang ‘aqidah! Kenyataan dia seolah-olah menggambarkan bahawa umat Islam yang terkemudian lebih maju dalam hal pengajian ‘aqidah! Memang benar bahawa para sahabat tidaklah mempunyai sistem pengajian yang canggih (baca: berkecamuk) sepertimana apa yang kita ada pada hari ini. Tetapi harus difahami bahawa para sahabat adalah mereka yang paling mantap ‘aqidah mereka, dan menjadi rujukan kita semua sehingga ke hari ini! Para sahabat adalah contoh kita dalam hal ‘aqidah. Bukankah dalam pembelajaran ‘aqidah pada hari ini pun kita memetik contoh-contoh daripada kisah sahabat? Penyusunan sistem bagi kita mempelajari dan memahami ‘aqidah yang benar seperti yang dilakukan oleh Al-Imam Abu Hassan Al-Asy’ari adalah juga bersumberkan kepada para sahabat, yang sudah tentunya datangnya pula daripada Sayyiduna Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. Jika dikatakan para sahabat tidak banyak belajar ‘aqidah, adalah tidak benar sama sekali kerana para sahabat berada bersama Rasulullah, dan mereka mempelajari keseluruhan isi kandungan kitab suci Al-Qur’an secara langsung daripada baginda Rasulullah! Mereka mempelajari ‘aqidah daripada dua sumber utamanya: Al-Qur’an dan Rasulullah! Mana mungkin mereka tidak banyak belajar ‘aqidah!

Justeru itulah Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady mengingatkan semua tentang niat. Menurut beliau, niat itu adalah penting kerana setiap amalan itu nilaiannya bergantung kepada niat. Niat yang tidak betul akan merosakkan amalan; sepertimana solat menjadi rosak, sedekah menjadi sia-sia jika niatnya adalah untuk membangga dan menonjolkan diri. Hal ini, menurut Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady, adalah sesuatu perkara yang sangat asas dan sangat penting tetapi ramai orang terlupa, termasuk sesetengah orang yang berilmu. Dalam melakukan pembaikan, teguran dan sebagainya kita haruslah ikhlas kerana mencari redha Allah Subhanahu wa ta’ala. Justeru, apa yang penting adalah kita menghormati orang lain, kita menghormati ‘ulil amri’. Jika ingin melakukan teguran, hendaklah dilakukan dengan cara baik dan cara berhikmah, bukannya dengan cara terus memaparkan kritikan itu di dada akhbar sehingga boleh mengakibatkan malu dan keresahan. Inilah adab namanya! Hal ini demikian kerana, jika benar kita ikhlas ingin menegur dan membuat pembaharuan maka sudah tentu boleh sahaja teguran itu disalurkan terus kepada pihak berwajib – kepada para pemerintah, kepada para ‘ulama – tanpa perlu melalui media massa. Kerana yang diinginkan adalah menyampaikan teguran dengan cara baik, bukan mencari populariti!

Mungkin disebabkan terasa dengan teguran ‘pedas’ Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady, Dr. MAZA naik suara sedikit. Dia menyatakan bahawa adalah tidak patut jika seseorang itu berbeza pendapat dengan orang lain, maka orang lain itu terus dituduh sebagai sesat, Wahabi dan sebagainya. Saya bersetuju dengan pandangan Dr. MAZA. Namun, ternyata di situ tersisip suatu keangkuhan dan cubaan untuk memutarbelitkan apa yang sebenarnya berlaku di negara ini. Harus difahami bahawa pertuduhan “sesat”, “Wahabi” dan sebagainya yang dilontarkan kepada individu-individu tertentu bukanlah dibuat secara semberono! Ya, mungkin sahaja ada di kalangan masyarakat awam di negara ini yang agak ‘emosional’ dan dengan mudahnya melabel orang dengan label yang pelbagai. Namun, di peringkat para ‘ulama dan intelektual, menghukum seseorang itu sebagai “sesat”, atau sebagai berfahaman “Wahabi” adalah sesuatu yang dibuat secara ilmiah. Apabila telah jelas dan telah zahir seseorang itu sesat, apakah mungkin kita mendiamkan diri dan tidak menyatakannya? Apakah hanya kerana semata-mata ingin meraikan ‘perbezaan pandangan’, maka kita tidak boleh menyatakan kesesatan seseorang itu apabila telah zahir kesesatannya? Jika begitu, tarikh balik sahaja pertuduhan kita terhadap Haji Kahar (Rasul Melayu). Fahaman dan aliran pemikiran yang “sesat” dan “Wahabi” itu telah lama dijelaskan dan dihadirkan dalil-dalil serta bukti bagi menyokong pertuduhan tersebut; hanya sahaja, mungkin segelintir pihak tidak mahu menerima hujah dan dalil-dalil yang dikemukakan.

Dr. Fauzi Deraman kemudiannya menekankan bahawa daripada segi sumber, tidak ada perselisihan kerana kita semua mengakui bahawa kita hanya ada dua sumber (dalam hal ‘aqidah, syariat mahupun akhlak) yakni Allah dan Rasul. Dr. Fauzi menyatakan bahawa kita tidak ada sumber-sumber yang lain selain daripada Allah dan Rasul. Hal tersebut sememangnya benar, bahawa tidak ada sumber yang lebih utama dalam agama selain daripada Allah dan Rasul. Namun, mungkin perlu dijelaskan lagi bahawa di dalam usul fiqh, melalui peruntukan di dalam nas-nas Al-Qur’an dan Al-Hadith, Ijma’ ‘Ulama juga diterima sebagai sumber – selepas Al-Qur’an dan Al-Hadith. Kegagalan mengiktiraf ijma’ ‘ulama sebagai sumber akan menyebabkan seseorang itu terjerumus ke dalam lembah kebiadaban ilmu. Memang benar sumber utama dalam Islam hanya dua, yakni Al-Qur’an dan Al-Hadith. Tetapi, siapakah yang akan menyampaikan kita kepada kefahaman yang benar tentang keduanya? Oleh sebab itulah, setelah Rasulullah berpesan para peringkat awalnya agar umat baginda berpegang kepada Al-Qur’an dan Al-Hadith, maka Rasulullah berpesan pula kepada kita menjelang penghujung kehidupan baginda di dunia ini supaya kita berpegang kepada sunnah Khulafa’ Ar-Rasyidiin dan sunnah Ahlul Bait. Hal ini demikian kerana mereka adalah kelompok yang paling ‘arif tentang Al-Qur’an dan sunnah Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. Oleh sebab itulah, setelah berlalunya zaman Rasulullah, para sahabat merujuk kepada orang yang paling hampir dengan Rasulullah dalam usaha untuk memahami Al-Qur’an dan As-Sunnah. Para tabi’in merujuk kepada para sahabat dalam usaha untuk memahami Al-Qur’an dan As-Sunnah. Para tabi’ tabi’in pula merujuk kepada para tabi’in dalam usaha yang sama. Dan begitulah seterusnya berlaku, sehingga kita pada hari ini merujuk kepada para ‘ulama, guru-guru kita, masyayikh kita yang mursyid dan murabbi, dalam usaha kita untuk memahami Al-Qur’an dan As-Sunnah. Inilah dikatakan adab! Bukannya dengan cara menolak pandangan para ‘ulama tradisi dan kemudian menelaah sendiri Al-Qur’an dan Al-Hadith – kerana siapa kita untuk memahami Al-Qur’an dan Al-Hadith? Kita hidup dalam zaman yang penuh dengan dosa dan maksiat, mana mungkin Allah mengurniakan kepada kita ‘ilmu dan kefahaman yang sama sepertimana yang dikurniakan kepada generasi terdahulu – kerana kita tidak layak!

Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady kemudiannya merumuskan perbincangan pada sesi rakaman Al-Kuliyyah itu dengan menasihatkan semua agar kembali kepada kerangka Ahli Sunnah wal Jamaah – aliran arus perdana yang dijamin kebenarannya oleh Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. Baginda Rasulullah telah menjamin untuk kita bahawa kerangka kebenaran (al-Haq) itu akan sentiasa ada di dalam agama ini, justeru itulah dia aliran arus perdana yang dibawa dan didokong oleh para ‘ulama secara berantaian daripada dahulu sehingga kini. Oleh sebab itulah di sisi pada ‘ulama, salah satu tradisi penting yang perlu dikekalkan bagi memastikan keberkatan dan kesahihan ilmu adalah tradisi pengajian secara bersanad. Kita haruslah mempunyai rantaian ilmu dengan guru kita, guru kepada guru kita, guru kepada guru kepada guru kita, dan begitulah seterusnya sehingga sampai kepada Al-Mu’allim Sayyiduna Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam.

Selesai sahaja sesi rakaman itu sesi soal jawab dibuka kepada penonton yang hadir. Ada beberapa soalan dilontarkan kepada ketiga-tiga panel. Pada sesi ini semakin terzahir kebiadaban beberapa orang ahli panel dan para penonton yang menyokong mereka. Dalam usaha untuk menjustifikasikan betapa perlunya usaha ‘tajdid’ yang sedang dia lakukan, dalam erti kata memecahkan pegangan kepada mazhab syafi’e dan menjadi ‘lebih terbuka’, Dr. MAZA mengambil beberapa contoh kelemahan pandangan di dalam mazhab syafi’e sambil menyatakan bagaimana sikap Imam Syafi’e sendiri serta sikap ‘ulama terdahulu yang begitu terbuka. Dr. MAZA memperli sikap ‘golongan agamawan’ serta ‘pihak berkuasa agama’, khususnya kerana sikap tertutup mereka dan kerana tindakan yang dikenakan ke atasnya oleh JAIS. Bukankah seharusnya sudah jelas, begitu ramai orang yang menentangnya bukanlah kerana dengki dan bukanlah kerana semata-mata tidak suka kepada perbezaan pandangan; tetapi, kerana aliran pemikiran yang dibawa oleh Dr. MAZA adalah berbahaya kepada kesejahteraan umat Islam di negara ini. Sikap Dr. MAZA yang memperlekeh ‘golongan agama’, mencabar ‘autoriti agama’ secara terbuka begitu, sambil disambut dengan tepukan tangan oleh sebilangan penonton, ternyata menampakkan keangkuhan dan ketiadaan adab. Apatah lagi apabila disambung pula oleh Dr. Fauzi Deraman yang mengikut rentak Dr. MAZA. Dr. Fauzi memperlekeh-lekeh pandangan dalam mazhab syafi’e (dalam kes ini berkaitan haji) yang katanya menyusahkan, sambil disambut dengan senyum dan gelak ketawa Dr. MAZA dan sebilangan para penonton. Kami hanya mampu terdiam melihat.

Namun, ternyata jika Allah ingin menzahirkan kebenaran maka tidak ada apa yang akan dapat menghalangnya. Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady menutup dengan suatu teguran yang langsung kepada para panelis dan penonton. Bergenang air mata tatkala Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady menyatakan kesayuan beliau melihat orang ramai bergelak-ketawa tatkala kisah para ‘ulama diceritakan dan pandangan mereka dilekeh-lekehkan. Begitu sayu beliau melihat orang ramai – termasuk para panelis – menganggap lekeh apa yang dibincangkan, sehingga boleh dijadikan bahan gelak ketawa. Ke mana perginya adab? Sungguh, persoalan adab ini adalah persoalan yang sangat penting. Ramai oleh boleh bercakap tentang adab, tetapi tidak semua orang benar-benar boleh menjadi orang yang beradab. Sekadar mengulangi pesanan Dr. Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady, bahawa ikutilah dan taatlah kepada aliran arus perdana Ahli Sunnah wal Jamaah. Taatlah kepada imam-imam Ahli Sunnah wal Jamaah. Bersikaplah dengan sikap yang betul; bercakaplah dengan bahasa dan ayat yang betul. Di dalam Al-Qur’an, Allah Subhanahu wa ta’ala menyatakan bahawa sesiapa yang tidak beradab dengan Rasulullah – cukup sekadar meninggikan suara lebih tinggi daripada suara Rasulullah – maka akan terhapus segala pahala amalannya. Nah, para ‘ulama itu pewaris Rasulullah, mengapakah kita enggan beradab dengan mereka? Memang benar mereka bukan maksum, bukan sempurna, tetapi sedarlah bahawa kita semua jauh lagi tidak sempurna daripada mereka!

Semoga Allah mengurniakan Rahmat kepada seluruh para pejuang Ahli Sunnah wal Jamaah; dan semoga Allah membuka pintu hati golongan berilmu yang sombong, serta para pengikut aliran pemikiran mereka.

Mohon maaf atas salah dan silap. Sekadar luahan rasa hasil ilham daripada Allah dan berkat sentuhan guru kita Syeikh Muhammad Fuad bin Kamaludin al-Maliki. Saya hanyalah seorang insan yang sangat hina yang sedang berusaha menggapai cinta-Nya, dan cinta Baginda sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam.

Wallahu’alam.

The Proper Spirit of Critique

My apologies for not writing as frequently as before. This semester has been a crazy semester thus far. I’m really looking forward to graduating from this rat race; and focus on issues I’d want to research and write on.

I had just completed my Asar prayers at the campus musollah one day. There were a group of youths from the Muslim Society gathering in a circle to listen to some naseehah about the role of the human consciousness. It became a very interesting and lively discussion when we began talking about topics on epistemology; the need for tafakkur, of reading and most importantly the spirit of critique.

There was this brother who shared a very insightful perspective on the importance of questioning in our quest for the truth. He said that the spirit of critique and discourse is severely lacking in Singapore. After which another brother shared his experiences in his home country of Ghana; the intellectual environment is totally different in Ghana, to the extent that people are also allowed to question the contents of the khutbah! It was an eye-opening experience and I do hope I can take part in their future discussions on epistemology.

However, in our quest to be a part of the ummatan wasatan or people of moderation, we should also acknowledge the other extreme of the spectrum in the issue of critique. Yes we acknowledge the fact that ignorance and lacking in the spirit of critique is one extreme of the spectrum, but we have not discussed the possibility of another form of intellectual extremism. And it is with this that I humbly attempt to dissect the very essence of the issue of the spirit of critique, or rather the proper spirit of critique.

For this, we turn to the wisdom of our predecessors. How did they criticize one another? In my attempt, I’d like to use the example of Imam Nawawi. The reason I am using him is that he is a scholar of a khalaf generation who we can relate to, an authoritative figure who has acquired mastery in a wide range of traditional Islamic sciences, and a genius who authored numerous books on hadith and tasawwuf, including his magnum opus the Riyadus Shalihin and his Hadith Arbai’n, before his early death in his forties- a feat that is quite impossible to be achieved by almost everyone else!

But how does Imam Nawawi practise the spirit of critique? Well it is known that although he disagrees with Imam Syafi’is fatwa or opinion, which states that digging or cleaning one’s noses during the day of the month of Ramadhan will make the fast batal, he still sticks to the Syafi’i mazhab. It could be that he only disagrees with that certain opinion of Imam Syafi’i and does not practise only that part. But he does not boldly claim that everyone should be “mazhab free” just because all these mazhab imams have erred in these matters which, when we investigate, are really minor or furu’ in nature. Neither does he attempt to reject the authority of Imam Syaf’i in the field of Islamic Jurisprudence or create his own mazhab just because Imam Syafi’i made an inaccurate judgment. Ultimately, he acknowledged the humanity and fallibility of these authoritative scholars, and at the same time he knows that he will never be at the same level as these imams when it comes to systematizing the law.

This is what Prof Wan defines in his book “Penjelasan Budaya Ilmu” as budaya kritik-apresiasi. To not just criticize but to appreciate the contributions of the scholars. In fact, to appreciate more than you criticize, because ultimately what you criticize is very minor as compared to the general ideas you find in those authoritative texts. The scholars of the old may err on the details, but we can trust that they are correct on the fundamentals, because they had gone through rigorous training and education, and they have authoritative teachers and possess a worldview that is not tampered with foreign elements like secularism.

And part of applying this culture of critique-appreciate is to avoid pointing out the weaknesses of authoritative scholars whose contributions far outweigh their errors, and to avoid discussing the anomalies in their opinions. This is not to be understood as infallibility though. At the same time this also avoids confusion among the general masses, who need and understand guidance in a different way. If we destroy these figures, who would they look up for as guide?

Which was why Imam Nawawi, upon scrutinizing Al-Ghazali’s works, considered it as the most important contribution to the Muslim world, even to the extent of saying that if all the other scholarly books in the world were lost, Islam can still go on with the guidance of Al-Ghazali’s ideas. Imam Nawawi himself is a muhaddithin; of course he knows the flaws in Al-Ghazali’s books, especially with regards to the weak hadiths that Al-Ghazali had used to elucidate his points. But he chose not to amplify these weaknesses and instead concentrate on the massive positive aspects that Al-Ghazali’s works possess that far outweighs the flaws he had made in the process of writing, which demonstrates his humanity and fallibility.

Well there is a certain school of thoughts which use rhetoric and dialectics to elucidate their points. They claim that we should follow only the way of the Prophet directly. These people assume that they can understand the Quran and the hadith directly, without the aid of the authoritative scholars. Personally I think this is a demonstration of arrogance and stupidity; we are so far away from the Prophet’s times such that we cannot ascertain accurately how the Prophet practised certain things. In fact, they have contradicted themselves by saying that they follow the Sunnah of the Prophet; in actual fact they actually practising taqlid towards their teachers. Their teachers, on the other hand, practise taqlid towards their own teachers. This only proves that Islam is learnt through teachers; we can never ascertain accurately that we are practising the Sunnah of the Prophet. Furthermore, to say that only they are following the Sunnah is to assume that all the people of the past are not. They put themselves at the same level of the authoritative scholars; they think they understand Revelation better than these people and thus is qualified and credible enough to ‘correct’ them and reject in totality what these scholars have talked about.

It is their obsession towards sanad criticism that has led them to come up with such bold statements. They have not considered the fact that Imam Bukhari is also human, and that he and all the other muhaddithin’s primary motivation to collect hadith was to systematize Islamic Jurisprudence. And as such, their emphasis is more towards the collection of legal hadiths, because that was the dominant discourse of their time.

It is important to know that the classification of the hadith is not yet complete. We need to classify the hadith according themes that are relevant to our times. Our primary challenge is not jurisprudence but epistemology and philosophy. Unfortunately, the hadiths that deal with epistemology and philosophy are weak from the perspective of sanad criticism. Does this mean that we abandon these hadiths that may aid us in our quest to rise up to this challenge?

Relying on sanad criticism alone has its flaws. One hadith can be considered sahih by one scholar’s methods and judgment, but daif according to another. Even some hadith in the authoritative Sahih Bukhari is disputed by some scholars, among them Al-Nawawi himself. As such, we need to go beyond sanad criticism in our analysis of the hadith.

We rely on true report as a source of knowledge. True report is not just the validity of sanad. It also includes the chain of teachings passed down from teacher to student; this means that we rely on the authority of generations of scholars and teachers, of whom reason cannot possibly regard all of them as liars. This is what is meant in the hadith of the Prophet: “The majority of my Ummah will never fall into error.”

Because it is principled dynamism that helps safeguard the sanctity of knowledge. Not unbridled criticism, caused by doubt, inherent in Western epistemologies..

The Culture of Knowledge

"Budaya Ilmu" or "The Culture of Knowledge" was one of the very first books I have read in epistemology. Written by Prof Dr Wan Mohd Nor, whom I consider as second in authority when it comes to the ideas of Prof Al-Attas, I find it a very interesting read and I'd encourage all those who love epistemological discourses to acquire it. The book can be found in the National Library.

Among the things that I think is interesting is Prof Wan's interpretation of the Prophetic sayings, "Seek knowledge even to the land of China." Although some Muhaddithin reject this hadith and say that it is maudhu' or a fabrication, I urge people to suspend their judgment and at least consider it as a wise saying that has some truth in it, even if there is a possibility that it might not come from the Prophet himself. As mentioned in my earlier articles, the epistemic framework of the Sunni school of thought is not only judged by a single criterion. The sciences of jar wa ta'dil or the sanad sciences alone do not determine whether something is true or false. As mentioned by an atsar from the sahabah Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, "Take something that is true, no matter where it originated from."

Returning back to our discussion regarding this saying, Prof Wan comments:
"It is said that China is far off and a big country before the coming of Islam. The Prophet has said to his companions to garner knowledge even in China. At that time this is not an easy task because one has to learn the language, travel great distances; it is riddled with risks of being robbed and one may never return home. However the Prophet did not stress that religious knowledge was in China at that time. On the other hand, it means to go to China to learn knowledge pertaining to the administration of the world; about paper, gun powder and civilizations, for example, that exist in China at that time. Currently, China is proving to be a world power that is gaining more ground. This proves the relevancy of the Prophet's teaching from before till today."

Therefore it is incumbent for us to understand that the the Islamic epistemic framework does not reject knowledge from other civilizations in totality. In fact, people are encouraged to acquire knowledge regardless of their sources.

However, it is equally important to also realize the hierarchy of importance of different types of knowledge. As Al-Ghazali and Al-Attas have clarified, knowledge is classified as either farhu ain or fardhu kifayah. Fardhu ain refers to branches of knowledge that is incumbent for the individual to acquire; this encompasses things that relate to aqidah, tasawwuf and basic fiqh and everything else that would assist the individual from spiritual danger. Fardhu kifayah knowledge, on the other hand, is a shared responsibility. This means that every community must produce an individual who is learned in that specific branch of knowledge, for the well-being of the community. For instance, the community is responsible to produce enough doctors. Different people have different fardhu ain, depending on the level of intellect and spiritual station. Different communities have different fardhu kifayah, depending on the needs of the community at the point of time.

In these modern times, in the readings of Prof Al-Attas, we live in an era of confusion because of our failure to realize the importance of these 2 things. On one hand we have people rejecting everything that is Western. On the other hand we have people emphasizing fardhu kifayah knowledge, at the expense of fardhu ain. This, in turn, produces imbalanced individuals, separated from their tradition, their worldview. This particular problem is then exacerbated by the fact that these imbalanced individuals then become the representatives and leaders of the Muslim world! In addition, communities produce too many experts in certain fields and neglect other fields of knowledge. Hence, we don't get much response from the Muslims in certain fields despite the challenges posed. As mentioned by Al-Ghazali in his magnum opus, the Ihya Ulumuddin, it is incumbent for the community to produce an expert even in fields that are harmful and not beneficial such as sorcery and witchcraft, so that the expert can guide the community away from these things.

Prof Al-Attas suggests "Islamization of Knowledge" as the solution to this confusion state. This Islamization project is aimed at establishing a proper understanding of the worldview of Islam, which would then solve the three problems stated above. Not only will it equip the individual with the worldview necessary to interpret knowledge from other civilizations and re-cast them into our own worldview, it will also produce experts that will be able to engage in proper civilizational dialogue that will be beneficial to mankind as a whole. This is a field that is often neglected, as the community busies itself in sectarianism and details, refusing to engage in discourses beyond the sphere of rituals and devotion.

As mentioned by Prof Al-Attas, both fardhu ain and fardhu kifayah knowledge are dynamic entities. Fardhu ain must grow in tandem with the fardhu kifayah knowledge acquired. As the Muslim learns new things, he must also equip himself with religious knowledge that will assist him should these new things be harmful to his faith and to the faiths of other Muslims.

The problem with most people is that their fardhu ain stops at a secondary school level. This treats fardhu ain knowledge as a static entity as opposed to a dynamic entity. On the other hand, there are some who are in the view that all people should study Islamic jurisprudence at the highest level possible. This view is also incorrect, because this does injustice to the concept of fardhu kifayah. We don't need so many interpreters of the law, do we? But the problem with our madrasah system is that it tends to churn out interpreters of the syariah, or rather, tape-recorders of the syariah, with the exception of a certain gifted few. Other relevant branches of knowledge are neglected, as if we don't need ulema in this fields. Do we have ulema who can interpret scientific phenomenon discoveries and re-cast them into our worldview?

What we mean when we say that people should study Islam at the highest level possible, is to obtain ma'rifah, or the knowledge of God. As mentioned by Al-Ghazali in many of his works in epistemological discourses, the knowledge of God is the highest and most noble knowledge of all, because it deals with the purpose of life itself and the very objective of religion. The Sufi Saint, Sheikh Abdul Qadir Al-Jailani, in his book the Sirrul Asrar, interpreted "submission" as "gnosis." To return to the state of fitrah or natural state would of course include the knowledge of God as Himself, and the knowledge of ourselves as His Servants. Therefore,the act of knowing in Islam is not just via cognitive means. There is an experiential dimension, and this is part of fardhu ain as well! This is why when we say Islamic Worldview in Arabic, it is not Tasawwur Islam or "Concept of Islam." This would imply that the Islamic Worldview is a mere concept that is purely cognitive. We say the Islamic Worldview as Ru'yatul Islam Lil Wujud or "The Vision of Islam With Regards To Existence." Because a vision is not merely cognitive, it is experiential as well.

This is the meaning of the culture of knowledge.

So what is your fardhu ain and fardhu kifayah?

Can Muslims Think, Correctly? (Part 2)

I particularly like this Sheikh Hamza Yusuf's exposition of Islamic intellectual tradition. It resonates with the ideas that I have in mind about the problem of the Muslim Mind as I read Prof Al-Attas books. Do watch the whole video, divided into 10 parts, on YouTube and you would understand why.

This is not a summary of the video. I will only touch on several points that have been raised by the Sheikh, particularly in areas that would complement my previous exposition on the problem of Muslim thought. It will risk oversimplification yes, but I hope that this would be of assistance to any sincere seeker of truth willing to Islamize their way of thinking. As mentioned by Prof Al-Attas, Islamization is defined as "the liberation of man first from magical, mythological, animistic, national-cultural tradition opposed to Islam, and then from secular control over his reason and his language."

As mentioned in my earlier articles, the ulema of the past do not deal with information; they deal with knowledge. What I mean by this is that they do not deal with details, such that one loses the big picture. This is how the Rabbis of the Jew deal with things; they question details such that they lose vision of the bigger picture of truth and reality. It saddens me why some Muslims, trapped in this state of confusion, waste hours of their energy dealing with details. Under the pretext of reform (tajdid), their main intent is to create a mazhab-free school of thought. But what they don't realise is that they are actually mainly dealing with minute details that are not important, at the expense of more important issues!

I find it quite strange that in one of the tafsir classes I attended, we were taught about the different views of different mazhabs, on whether reciting the Basmalah in Al-Fatihah is permissible or not. We are then advised to 'discern' the 'truth' of this matter and select the view that is more closer to the 'truth,' even if it means rejecting your own mazhab's view. Because truth to them is 'mazhab-free.'

The only truth I can conclude from this false intellectual exercise is that all these efforts are stupid and irrelevant! The main reason why Muslims are so backward in their thinking is not necessarily because of 'taqlid' or 'blind obedience' towards a mazhab, but rather because the so-called ulema are not doing their job. They deal with stupid details, at the expense of bigger issues and challenges! They fall into what I would define as the "Jewish Confusion."

The true Ulema, on the other hand, deal with depth, with meanings of things. This is what Islamic scholarship is all about, which is why the acquisition of knowledge is defined as the arrival of meaning to the soul, or the arrival of the soul to meaning. Therefore the act of thinking is a journey towards meaning. Whether the words "thinking is better than worship" is a hadith or not is not within the scope of this discussion, but if we are to argue on how difficult a journey is towards meaning, then we can conclude that the term does have some truth in it.

As mentioned by the Sheikh, some of the greatest intellectual works are produced out of the tension that was bearing upon the Muslim world. For instance, when we were confronted with Greek Metaphysics, our ulema rose to the occassion and developed a specific science in refutation of their arguments, known as the Kalam. The ulema who were specialists in this field are called the Mutakallim. The Mutakallim wrote at length to prove the existence of God and to rearticulate and defend the central tenets of Islam, using their methods and language. Although the Kalam sciences was looked down upon by other ulemas in general as a deragatory science since as Muslims we have already accepted the existence of God, it is an important science nonetheless. It would aid the Muslim out of the confusion he is facing in his mind with the barrage of Hellanistic thought he is faced with.

An example is the Iraqi scholar, Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani. He started out as a faqih; an expert in Islamic Jurisprudence. Sensing the need for Kalam scholars to defend Islamic theology against foreign Hellanistic thought, he became one himself and subsequently became the ambassador to the Caliph in Rome.

Today, we are faced by many intellectual challenges from different fronts. We have Secularists, we have Christians, we have Scientists, interpreting our scholar's works in their own light, attributing their understanding of what religion is in their study of Islam. In short, they define things for us. And then they confuse us by saying that this is the truth.

The truth is, the truth is tampered by them. Their measure of truth is different!

But where are our Baqillanis? What is our response?

Even worse, we now have Muslims, alienated from their tradition and confused by Orientalist works and notions of freedom, justice and truth, interpreting things for us in their light. We have Muslims talking about tajdid or 'reform,' the same way Protestants talk about reform against the Catholics. This Orientalist phenomenon is what Syed Farid Alatas has defined as the "Christianization" of thought. The Orientalists write about the similarities between Protestantism and contemporary Muslim reform movements, as if to suggest that what the Muslim world needs is a similar Protestant type of reform.

We have to understand that firstly the context (between Protestantism and contemporary Muslim reform movements) is different. Protestantism is the product of both secularization and disappointment with the Papacy.

But what is 'reform' according to the true Muslim identity? It is the return to tradition, guided by Revelation in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. It is to appreciate the great scholarly spirit and tradition of the past, and to apply that same spirit to contemporary problems and challenges of today. This is the purpose, the meaning, of thinking correctly!

The Orientalist are like viruses; they infect the cells. Sadly, the cells are now self-replicating on its own. The viruses have done their bid and left the cells to do their work. And what is our response?

We either blame taqlid, promote ijtihad, or raise the banner of reform. And then we deal with details that do not mean anything.

Sadly, we are alienated from our roots, our traditions, such that we no longer know what these things truly mean.

This is the state of the Ummah today, thrown into the abyss of confusion, struggling to move. This what Islamic movements are all about. They move, but they do not know where to move. After which, they would soon realise that they are not getting anywhere, because they have been moving in a circle all along.

Can Muslims Think, Correctly?

I have been wanting to write on this for quite some time. It all started with a magazine article a friend wrote with a similar title, "Can Muslims Think?" which I have found very interesting, despite the inaccuracies and misrepresentations of the Al-Attas school of thought. Coupled with a very insightful session at Young AMP with brother Abdul Halim and Dr Omar Moad on the question of critical thinking, I find it impossible to not write anything about the issue.

Before I start, again I would like to say that the purpose of me writing this is not to criticize or to slander anyone. The writer of the mentioned article is a sincere person and has written it to the best of his abilities, despite his limitations around him, and as such insya-Allah he will be rewarded for his noble actions amin! What I will attempt to do is merely to highlight the alternative, from a philosophical and epistemological perspective, as always :)

Muslims scholars, in their epistemological discourses, have classified Man as haiwan al-natiqah (rational animal). And as such, it is the potential and act of thinking that distinguishes ourselves from other animal species. As such, indeedly there is something wrong with the statement "Can Muslims Think?" because if we proceed from the mantiqi fashion, the potential to think is already there; it is God's gift given to Man. It makes no sense to ask whether Man can eat or not; eating is part of Man's nature. So is thinking. Well of course, there are people who do not think at all, but these are the exception rather than the norm. For instance, senile people, or insane people, or even those who have not reached the baligh (puberty) stage they do not possess a complete intellect and hence is aptly excused from taklif (responsibilities). Hence, it is also equally apt to say that responsibilities are dependent on the level of intellect that one has, but on this I shall not elaborate further. At the same time, it is also equally apt to highlight the fact that the biggest injustices come from the so-called learned, not the ignorant! Think communism and nazism.

It is rather the act of thinking, not the potential, that is the question. Meaning to say, how one uses this potential. And of course, one can use it correctly, or incorrectly. What we mean by using correctly is to use something according to what it is designed for. Or rather, the purpose or meaning of it all. For instance, one can use a cup to drink tea and hence uses the cup correctly. An incorrect usage would be, for instance, to water the plants. Because that is not what the cup is designed for!

There are many injunctions in the Qur'an that call for Man to think, reflect and ponder, correctly. Those who abuse or misuse this gift is mentioned in the Quran as equivalent to grazing animals, or have committed zulm (injustice). This has been elaborated sufficiently in Al-Ghazali's Kitab Al-Ilm, and as such this brief musing will not elaborate on this matter.

Thinking, or criticial thinking, is defined by most Western scholars, as an act of using reason 'freely', or to arrive at a conclusion 'without bias or prejudice.' Consistent with the West secularizing experiences and scorn against Christian 'revelation,' especially during the Inquisition period in the midsts of the Enlightenment era, the Western mode of 'scientific' thinking would therefore regard religion and revelation as 'tying people down.' This is where the word religio comes from, in Latin it means "to tie." And as such according to them it is an imperative to 'think freely', free from 'dogma', to reject 'tying' tradition, in order to arrive at the truth. Hence, to arrive at the truth, one's thinking must not be tied; this is the essence of critical thinking according to them!

But in essence, one can never think freely. If thinking is to bear fruitful results, than thinking obviously would be limited by a framework of truth and reality! Hence, the terms "thinking freely" is an oxymoron!

But Islam does not have this experience, and therefore it is absolutely unnecessary to follow suit. As they are 'arriving' at the truth, we already have by virtue of Revelation and Prophetic guidance. We have a different framework of truth and reality. It is unfortunate that their ongoing plan to secularize, in an attempt to 'liberate' us, is but a deliberate plan to impose their values, their notion, their framework of truth and reality, on us!

It is unfortunate that the Modernist Muslims, influenced by this mode of thinking, have simplified critical thinking to that of ijtihad. Ijtihad is now simplified as "independent reasoning." Sounds like "free thinking" or "critical thinking" in our discussion, doesn't it? Unfortunately, this is how things are taught in our madrasahs and mosques. They talk about a so-called dark age where the doors of ijtihad are 'closed', and subsequently 'opened' by certain heroes and cult personalities whose credentials, both intellectually and spiritually, are obviously not of the same level to that of the earlier mujtahids. By stating that the doors of ijtihad should remain open, they have assumed that it was closed prior to being opened. This is a baseless assumption; because ijtihad is still ongoing on issues that are new. There is no need to perform an ijtihad on things that are already established; this is foolishness equivalent to re-inventing the wheel. Or this assumes that they have the ability to re-invent the wheel, although they are not equipped as well as their predecessors. In a sense, they are not really thinking correctly, although they are indeedly thinking.

So how can a Muslim think correctly? In my opinion, firstly we need to discuss how one should think, and how this thinking would bear the correct results. Or in a sense, what distinguishes between the right and wrong; the criterion of truth and falsehood.

We are talking about re-examining the framework of our thinking processes, which would therefore guide us towards discerning the truth and meaning of things. By framework, we mean the worldview, established by Revelation, that determines truth from error. And since the dominant challenge for today is secularism, it is therefore an imperative to examine the secular worldview vis-a-vis the worldview of Islam.

The analogy is like performing an experiment. To really measure a certain relationship between 2 things, you need controls. These controls would significantly assist you in eliminating impurities and random variables that affect the accuracy and precision of your findings.

So what are you waiting for? Start thinking, correctly :)

The Meaning of Unity

"When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): "Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?"- They said: "Yea! We do testify!" (This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: "Of this we were never mindful"" 7:172

This particular verse of the Holy Qur'an bears great significance, especially with regards to the metaphysical foundations of our belief (Qawaidh Al-Aqa'id).

Perhaps it would be useful to elaborate on the background of this particular verse. In the realm of the soul, before the soul is being 'blown' into the foetus, Allah s.w.t called upon all the souls to testify in the Primordial Covenant; to testify the Oneness of God. Hence, the terms "Alastu Birabbikum" (Am I not your Lord?) followed by "Bala Syahidna!" (Yea! We do testify!) would therefore describe one of the most fundamental elements of our faith, because it deals with the very purpose, the very meaning of life itself (ma'na), that is, to remember this Covenant that all of us took, both as an individual and as a collective, in the realm of the soul. All our good works and services ('amal ibadah) are actually manifestations towards realizing this Covenant, both in a physical and spiritual sense.

From this verse itself, we derive many meanings that would assist us in understanding certain things. The verse do not only deal with the relationship between God and Man, it also deals with the question of what true unity is. Relating to this verse, we define unity as "the act of testifying the Oneness of God as a collective group of souls in the realm of souls."

Therefore unity in this sense do not just deal with the physicalities (zahir). More importantly, unity is a state of mind-heart-soul. Or in other words, a spiritual state, brought about by the realization of where all of us stand before time.

I can recall an interesting encounter with the question of unity recently. While we were waiting for the witr prayers to be performed, we had a pleasant surprise of performing it in a different way. Specifically, we did the witr practised by the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, while almost all among us have been practising Islam primarily from the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence all our lives. The reason of practising the witr a different way, according to the organisers, is to promote 'unity' among the different mazhabs. The organisers have highlighted their displeasure with certain Hanafi practitioners voluntarily excluding themselves from the bigger Syafi'i jemaah to perform the witr, their way, on their own. This, to them, symbolizes 'disunity' and lacking in respect towards the differences between the mazhabs. They quote the authoritative Imam Syafi'i as the ideal, who in respect towards Muslims of other school of thought in Egypt, did not perform the qunut because it is not the norm there.

And as such the jemaah was given a 5 minute crash course on how to perform the witr the Hanafi way. While some had the ability to grasp this 'new' concept, others have resorted to a 'monkey see monkey do' fashion of performing the witr.

Before I proceed, I think it is necessary to highlight that firstly, this message is not crafted with the intention of slandering anyone. The organisers have done a wonderful job of organising one of the most spiritually enriching terawih sessions I have ever attended, and their sincere intentions of delivering the message of unity in the midsts of the differences in mazhab practices would insya-Allah be generously rewarded by Allah s.w.t in this blessed month of Ramadhan amin!

But do allow me to present an alternative view of unity. Firstly, it is not apt to cite the Syafi'i case, because it is a case where the minority compromises certain practices in respect to the majority. Secondly, it is not wise to assume that the intention of the Hanafi practitioners mentioned is to exclude themselves from the majority, because if we were to understand the Hanafi school of thought properly, the witr prayers are fard (obligatory) to them. Hence it is their prerogative to form their own congregation when it comes to witr, simply because the Syafi'i imam is doing it as a sunat (recommended, but not obligatory) prayers instead.

Ultimately, if we were to understand the true meaning of unity as stated in the verse above, we would know that unity is a state of the heart. In other words, to be indifferent towards the differences in practice, that is unity!

Whether it is the Syafi'i way or the Hanafi way, all these are really not important, because these are matters that are furu' (not fundamental) in nature. What matters is the meaning of it all, the ma'na syai'! Therefore, it is really one's prerogative to stick to a single school of thought, because ultimately one is not judged by how one performs his witr, but rather the quality of his witr. Or in other words, what the witr means to him. What's important is that one is indifferent towards this minute differences. Or in other words, one is not bothered by all these things. To highlight the differences, despite packaging it as a message of unity, would thus reflect otherwise.

Sectarianism is not a significant problem in today's modern world. Secularism is.

Let us all move on from dialectics towards more meaningful discourses. Amin.