"Allah does not impose upon any soul a duty beyond the extent of its ability.." 2:286
"Surely Allah commands that you return back those duties to those that are qualified." 4:58
My brief term in office will come to an end soon. Despite the valuable lessons and experiences gathered, some how there is a sorrowful feeling in my soul.
As if something is inherently wrong in what we are doing..
My reflections will center on these 2 verses of the Holy Qur'an, which I feel is the root problem of student societies.
The Big D and T
In the mists of confusion and the lack of direction, somehow student societies do have an end objective that it intends to work towards. This objective I term as the "Big D and T". What exactly is this "Big D and T"? My apologies for the introduction of acronyms, as if we haven't had enough of those. And it doesn't stand for Design and Technology either.
The Big D and T stands for Da'wah and Tarbiyah. Da'wah? Sounds like a very big word. But do students actually know what it means and what it represents?
Da'wah, as understood by the classical scholars and authorities of this field of knowledge known as Usul Da'wah and Fiqh Da'wah is a Prophetic quality and responsibility. Semantically, da'wah is an invitation to the Non-Muslims in the form of jadal or debate in its best of forms. Yet da'wah seems to be applied by ignorant students as a missionary act of reforming fellow Muslims as well. This is incorrect; the accurate term for this is islah or call instead. Alternatively it should also be replaced as naseehah or reminder instead. Just imagine, why would you want to invite your forgetful Muslim brother again?
There are differences in opinion in determining whether da'wah is fardhu ain or fardhu kifayah, but majority of the views, including the view of Sheikhul Islam Ibn Taimiyah whom the "Tajdid" people subscribe to, indicates that the responsibility of da'wah is on the collective and not on the individual. As such, da'wah is fardhu kifayah in nature whose responsibility rests on the shoulders of those that are qualified to take up.
And so we come to a very important question- Are we as secularized students, having pre-school level iman and knowledge on Islam, qualified to perform da'wah as understood semantically?
Then perhaps the answer is no, and the solution proposed by students would be education, that is, to formulate a Tarbiyah system that would equip the students with tools for da'wah. The end goal? Da'is, or rather, Super Da'is. And strangely, the tarbiyah system necessary to produce the Super Da'i is conjured up magically from thin air based on the secularized student's prior (preschool) knowledge on Islam, without the guidance of thinkers and scholars who deal with the root problems of society. When told to at least read up on these issues especially Islamic metaphysics, the secularized students complain of the "heavy" content, yet at the same time want to be "qualified" to deal with a heavy Prophetic responsibility. These are the same people who are actively involved in "interfaith dialogues" which they simplistically understand as da'wah (when it is not and this I will elaborate another time).
Hypocrisy? You bet.
The medical doctor had to go through 5 years of medical education before finally receiving the qualification and the responsibility of saving lives. What more for the most important and heaviest task of all- da'wah?
Of(f) Outreach
Another salient feature of Muslim student societies is its zeal and enthusiasm in outreach. And what they mean by outreach is reaching out to as many people as possible, in the spirit of their rudimentary understanding of the term "ukhwah" and "ummah", to fulfil the final objective of their rudimentary understanding of da'wah/islah.
It is in this obsession of ukhwah and ummah that I also find strange and hypocritical as well. In their efforts to cast the net as wide as possible, the people that have caught their attention seem to be the same type of fish, I mean, people. It is this dimension of Muslim societies that the leaders can safely claim their societies to be "inclusive" and "outreaching". And this obsession about number of attendees have become their measure in determining what they define as "success" of the particular "outreach" event. This "statistical" measure of success falls short of a salient and visible long term impact or objective. Even if they do garner the numbers required, there is no follow-up to those they have "outreached" to. So what exactly does the term "outreach" mean to them? Simply to gather as many people as possible in their "Islamized" sports, fun and games event? And then what?
Semantically, to outreach to others would require something to promote such that the idea promoted becomes part of the belief system. In a way, it is like a cowboy's lasso; it's launch is followed by an inward pull. Yet this important "inward pull" is absent!
What about those people (or fish) that got away? Some view them as "intimidating" and "judgmental", others completely oblivious to their activities.
Which them brings me to this point. Why do they find us intimidating?
Again I'd like to bring us back to the 2 verses in discussions. Are we in the qualified position to judge one's character?
Yet we see such instances happening. When some of the visions of the societies include "Towards a God-Conscious Society" students drive themselves away from God due to their pride and arrogance, and drive their so-called mad'u or target audience away from God too.
So what exactly is the objective of "outreach" activities? To rope in as "many" people as possible, or is it just an "Islamic" excuse for the secularized, pseudo-religious elite to relax and have fun?
Student Activism and Volunteerism
Recently there is an increasing trend of student volunteerism in the form of Madrasah mentoring services and humanitarian-education trips to less developed countries. While it is indeed positive and should be applauded, such efforts fall short of a knowledge-base that would assist in defining the end objective of such student movements.
The mentee is mentored. The mentee passes the exams with flying colours. And then what?
If the end objective is to rescue the Madrasah from closure, then the situation would demand a more sustainable model of activism and volunteerism. This would then involve the readings of the philosophy of education in Islam, in an attempt to reform the current system.
With regards to humanitarian trips also known as Youth Expedition Projects, it seems to me that it is rather costly. In fact it is too costly, bordering onto a wastage of public funds that could be channelled into more impactful and sustainable programmes.
The student goes to less-developed country. The student teaches some basic English in a few days (which is most probably forgotten within weeks after the student leaves), does some improvements to the infrastructure. And then what?
YEP trips too demand a more sustainable model whose impact can still be felt in the long run.
The Confusion of Responsibilities
In a nutshell, the above discussion points towards a Muslim student society who serves an exclusive pseudo-religious elite. The elite who falls into lazy habits of the mind, the elite who does not read and seek to enrich itself with knowledge first before taking up heavy responsibilities. The elite who wants to take up various responsibilities even before he is qualified. The elite who measures success using a statistical-numerical analysis. The elite who has a flawed view of outreach, who likes "big" things without considering the marginal analysis of their misdirected efforts. And above all, an elite who falls short of the knowledge-base he needs to forward his causes.
I sum up all these effects sprouting from one root cause- the confusion of responsibilities. We actively seek to burden ourselves with responsibilities that we are not qualified to shoulder. Inherently, there is this "levelling" effect, introduced by the Ikhwan model for student societies, such that the student feels that he is equally capable of taking up the responsibilities of the ulema and da'i. When he isn't.
Why?
Because we have forgotten our most important role in society. Semantically, the student is defined as the seeker of knowledge. But absent in our activities is the culture of knowledge, the zeal and desire to read and critically analyze and reflect on our state of affairs.
Do not misunderstand culture of knowledge as an obsession towards academic results. What I mean is that there must be an environment where the pursuit of knowledge is driven by pure sincerity and curiosity in wanting to know more, especially with regards to the underlying factors and the philosophy that have shaped our state of affairs, both through reading and consulting the proper authorities of knowledge.
And as such, the culture of knowledge demands that we as students revisit what knowledge is in Islam and what is the classification of knowledge in Islam. And with this we would be able to come to a realization on the proper authorities of knowledge. With this epistemological awareness, coupled with spiritual and intellectual vigor, the student can then know his or her proper place in society to which he or she can contribute towards at his or her maximum capacity, being blessed with different talents and interests, without being tampered and confused by secularizing forces that have engulfed the whole planet and has made the Muslims forget their own identity, values and proper place in the history of Man.
The analogy of the Muslim student is that of a tree. It needs nurturing and growth with knowledge and wisdom, it needs to be rooted firmly in it's Muslim identity and worldview, and as it grows it branches out to reach out to others using the fruits of their learning.
This is not to say that we should all abandon what we are doing. What I would suggest is that the culture of knowledge, that is the culture of reading and of consulting the authorities of knowledge, should be the centrepiece of every Muslim student societies.
The Holy Qur'an's first revelation is IQRA'. There are many injunctions in the Qur'an and the Sunnah that talks about the importance of the intellect and of knowledge.
Some may disagree with me on this on the basis of knowledge (and not emotions). That is totally fine with me.
It is better to have an opinion than not to have an opinion at all. Islam is not the religion for the fools.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
The Forgotten History of the Intellectual Malays: A Brief Review of the Malay Translation of Al-Nasafi’s Aqa’id
The Forgotten History of the Intellectual Malays: A Brief Review of the Malay Translation of Al-Nasafi’s Aqa’id
Hasanul Arifin
When Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas received an old manuscript handed to him for examination by his scholarly cousin, Ungku Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul Hamid in 1984, little would he realize until later that the manuscript in his possession would be one of the most significant documents in describing the history of the Malays. This book, bound in yellow parchment with gilt-edged leaves, would uncover the intellectual story of the Malays long forgotten by many.
This manuscript is discovered to be the oldest known surviving Malay manuscript. Yes, the oldest! Ironically to some, it does not deal with legends or myths of tortoises turning into stones to form islands, nor does it deal with the mundane affairs of states or of wayward rulers with an eye for young maidens! Rather, it deals with the fundamental beliefs and faith of the Muslims based upon the essentials of the religion of Islam, which undoubtedly would be of great significance for the study of Malay language and literature as well as the religious and intellectual history of the Malays.
This manuscript is to be known as the 16th Century Malay translation of the Aqa’id by the eminent scholar Umar Ibn Muhammad Al-Nasafi of Tatar. Containing concise definitions of terms used in the metaphysics of Islam, it is believed that the book in the possession of Al-Attas is used as a manual or textbook by a teacher for teaching advanced students in the articles of belief in Islam. This manual also most probably preceded the commentaries of the Acehnese scholar Nuruddin Ar-Raniri on the Aqa’id, and could be written as a response to the pseudo-sufis who have misinterpreted the works of Hamzah Fansuri.
This unprecedented discovery, documented in Al-Attas’ “The Oldest Known Malay Manuscript: A 16th Century Malay Translation of The Aqa’id of Al-Nasafi” would then become proof to demonstrate that:
- There exists within the Malay community, a well-educated intellectual class and an intelligentsia that yearns to unravel the meaning of things and one that dabbles in sophisticated philosophy.
- The understanding of Islam among the Malays does not just stop at rituals and superficialities as claimed by other scholars. In fact, deep discussions on epistemology and metaphysics exist way back in the 16th century.
- The Islamization of the Malay language, brought about by the redefinition of terms from Hindu-Buddhist origin such as syurga and neraka to connote that of jannah and nar or paradise and hell as understood by the Qur’an and the Sunnah, as well as addition of Arabic terms such as mukjizat, is very much apparent.
- The Islamization of the Malays occurred centuries before that of the Javanese.
- There exists some form of mathematical modelling among the Malays, apparent in their octennial cycle known as daur kechil.
The Aqa’id begins with philosophical statements on the real essences of things - on the possibility of knowledge, on the causes of knowledge, on the atomistic metaphysics of substance, accident and the continuous creation in explanation of the theory of the universe, as well as on the nature of God and on Man’s self. In the same fashion as that of Al-Ghazali’s Ihya Ulumuddin, Al-Nasafi begins with definite statements about knowledge. This is considered to be very important because a denial of the possibility and objectivity of knowledge would result in the destruction of the fundamental basis upon which Islam is rooted upon. In addition, the old Malay manuscript also contains an undated, unfinished appendix, which seeks to define the meaning of religion, of cognition and of unification.
The Aqa’id, expressed in a glossary-like way, contains several declarations and definite statements that reject the position held by the Sophists, Mu’tazilites, Batiniyyah Shiites and the Falasifah or the Philosophers in the realm of metaphysics, as an effort to express the true doctrine and identity of Islam. In a nutshell, the Sophists, in their misleading and persuasive method of logic and rhetoric, taught that everything is relative and that man is the measure of all things. They also deny the possibility of existence and of knowledge, taught that religion is a deception invented by the strong to subdue the weak, and that laws and its implementation are merely something conventional created by human society and whose validity depends on its context. The Mu’tazilites, on the other hand, using a rationalistic method of discussion and disputation, proposed new theories relating to anthropomorphic Qualities and Attributes of God, and of the nature of Divine Speech and hence the nature of the Holy Qur’an as well as the Vision of God in the Hereafter. The Batiniyyah indulged in ‘hidden’ meanings of Quranic verses and of a ‘hidden’ imam that will emerge as the long awaited Mahdi, while the Philosophers, similar but more sophisticated and profound than the Mu’tazilites, maintained a position on the nature of God, of Man and of the Universe that is based upon the Aristotelian natural sciences and the Neoplatonic emanation system.
In retrospect, examining this monumental intellectual masterpiece would inspire us to possess the same spirit and zeal in philosophical and scientific inquiry inherent in our forefathers over the nature of things. We do not need to redefine ourselves as Melayu 2.0, Melayu Baru or anything of that sort; because we know now from a historical perspective, the original Melayu would connote an advanced and sophisticated group of people.
Not only will reading the Aqa’id increase our knowledge about the intellectual history of the Malays, it would also equip us with the metaphysical worldview necessary to tide the challenge of an increasingly diluted and confused Muslim identity facing a largely secularizing, globalizing world. The Aqa’id may not provide those in-your-face responses to ideas like the transcendental unity of religions, religious pluralism or even the steady-state theory of the Universe. Rather, it would assist in forming a framework for which one can respond effectively against alien ideologies that can affect our aqidah and also as a preparation for inter-religious dialogue.
Malays are stupid and lazy? Think again :)
The writer is the current Vice President of the NUS Muslim Society. He majors in Bioengineering and Technology Management and has keen interest in Islamic Philosophy and Epistemology.
Hasanul Arifin
When Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas received an old manuscript handed to him for examination by his scholarly cousin, Ungku Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul Hamid in 1984, little would he realize until later that the manuscript in his possession would be one of the most significant documents in describing the history of the Malays. This book, bound in yellow parchment with gilt-edged leaves, would uncover the intellectual story of the Malays long forgotten by many.
This manuscript is discovered to be the oldest known surviving Malay manuscript. Yes, the oldest! Ironically to some, it does not deal with legends or myths of tortoises turning into stones to form islands, nor does it deal with the mundane affairs of states or of wayward rulers with an eye for young maidens! Rather, it deals with the fundamental beliefs and faith of the Muslims based upon the essentials of the religion of Islam, which undoubtedly would be of great significance for the study of Malay language and literature as well as the religious and intellectual history of the Malays.
This manuscript is to be known as the 16th Century Malay translation of the Aqa’id by the eminent scholar Umar Ibn Muhammad Al-Nasafi of Tatar. Containing concise definitions of terms used in the metaphysics of Islam, it is believed that the book in the possession of Al-Attas is used as a manual or textbook by a teacher for teaching advanced students in the articles of belief in Islam. This manual also most probably preceded the commentaries of the Acehnese scholar Nuruddin Ar-Raniri on the Aqa’id, and could be written as a response to the pseudo-sufis who have misinterpreted the works of Hamzah Fansuri.
This unprecedented discovery, documented in Al-Attas’ “The Oldest Known Malay Manuscript: A 16th Century Malay Translation of The Aqa’id of Al-Nasafi” would then become proof to demonstrate that:
- There exists within the Malay community, a well-educated intellectual class and an intelligentsia that yearns to unravel the meaning of things and one that dabbles in sophisticated philosophy.
- The understanding of Islam among the Malays does not just stop at rituals and superficialities as claimed by other scholars. In fact, deep discussions on epistemology and metaphysics exist way back in the 16th century.
- The Islamization of the Malay language, brought about by the redefinition of terms from Hindu-Buddhist origin such as syurga and neraka to connote that of jannah and nar or paradise and hell as understood by the Qur’an and the Sunnah, as well as addition of Arabic terms such as mukjizat, is very much apparent.
- The Islamization of the Malays occurred centuries before that of the Javanese.
- There exists some form of mathematical modelling among the Malays, apparent in their octennial cycle known as daur kechil.
The Aqa’id begins with philosophical statements on the real essences of things - on the possibility of knowledge, on the causes of knowledge, on the atomistic metaphysics of substance, accident and the continuous creation in explanation of the theory of the universe, as well as on the nature of God and on Man’s self. In the same fashion as that of Al-Ghazali’s Ihya Ulumuddin, Al-Nasafi begins with definite statements about knowledge. This is considered to be very important because a denial of the possibility and objectivity of knowledge would result in the destruction of the fundamental basis upon which Islam is rooted upon. In addition, the old Malay manuscript also contains an undated, unfinished appendix, which seeks to define the meaning of religion, of cognition and of unification.
The Aqa’id, expressed in a glossary-like way, contains several declarations and definite statements that reject the position held by the Sophists, Mu’tazilites, Batiniyyah Shiites and the Falasifah or the Philosophers in the realm of metaphysics, as an effort to express the true doctrine and identity of Islam. In a nutshell, the Sophists, in their misleading and persuasive method of logic and rhetoric, taught that everything is relative and that man is the measure of all things. They also deny the possibility of existence and of knowledge, taught that religion is a deception invented by the strong to subdue the weak, and that laws and its implementation are merely something conventional created by human society and whose validity depends on its context. The Mu’tazilites, on the other hand, using a rationalistic method of discussion and disputation, proposed new theories relating to anthropomorphic Qualities and Attributes of God, and of the nature of Divine Speech and hence the nature of the Holy Qur’an as well as the Vision of God in the Hereafter. The Batiniyyah indulged in ‘hidden’ meanings of Quranic verses and of a ‘hidden’ imam that will emerge as the long awaited Mahdi, while the Philosophers, similar but more sophisticated and profound than the Mu’tazilites, maintained a position on the nature of God, of Man and of the Universe that is based upon the Aristotelian natural sciences and the Neoplatonic emanation system.
In retrospect, examining this monumental intellectual masterpiece would inspire us to possess the same spirit and zeal in philosophical and scientific inquiry inherent in our forefathers over the nature of things. We do not need to redefine ourselves as Melayu 2.0, Melayu Baru or anything of that sort; because we know now from a historical perspective, the original Melayu would connote an advanced and sophisticated group of people.
Not only will reading the Aqa’id increase our knowledge about the intellectual history of the Malays, it would also equip us with the metaphysical worldview necessary to tide the challenge of an increasingly diluted and confused Muslim identity facing a largely secularizing, globalizing world. The Aqa’id may not provide those in-your-face responses to ideas like the transcendental unity of religions, religious pluralism or even the steady-state theory of the Universe. Rather, it would assist in forming a framework for which one can respond effectively against alien ideologies that can affect our aqidah and also as a preparation for inter-religious dialogue.
Malays are stupid and lazy? Think again :)
The writer is the current Vice President of the NUS Muslim Society. He majors in Bioengineering and Technology Management and has keen interest in Islamic Philosophy and Epistemology.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Islamization of Knowledge - Uncut Version
I wrote this for AMP Karyawan Magazine. This is the unedited version of it, which of course is too wordy and will be a victom of a massive cut down. Just sharing..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is “Islamic”? How do we consider something to be “Islamic”? How can we “Islamize” certain aspects of our life? Is it by comparison with a glorious “Islamic” past that is to be treated as a sort of a standard? Or is “Islamization” performed by assimilating some components or aspects found in the religion of Islam, for instance, some rituals, laws or values? Is there an “Islamic” science or an act of “Islamizing” science? How about “Islamizing” schools?
These are some of the questions that we grapple with when we talk about a big word known as “Islamization”; a term that is widely discussed within academia circles especially in the Malay world. It is a term that has a huge bearing in the shaping of national education systems and institutions, yet at the same time a term that is easily misunderstood as an anti-West discourse or as a regressive revolutionary idea.
There are primarily two schools of thought associated with the notion of Islamization; the first spearheaded by the late scholar of Islam, Ismail Faruqi and his IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought), and one initiated by Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas using ISTAC (International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization)as his propagation centre. To some, the former is a plagiarised, superficial version of the latter, whereas to others the former is but a marketing tool or platform necessary to popularize the latter, and as such performs a complementary role in reinforcing the latter. However, both versions agree that the term “Islamization” is originally Al-Attas to claim, and as such this article will focus on Al-Attas’ idea of Islamization.
At the very heart of this concept of Islamization is the concept of an Islamic metaphysical worldview. As an analogy, a worldview is a spectacle or window through which one sees the world. And as such, one’s outlook and perception of life is very much dependant on the worldview through which one lives his or her life through, and this perception is dynamically shaped by one’s education and environment. A worldview gives meaning and purpose in our actions; it gives the answers to questions dealing with why and how we exist. It defines what ethical or moral values that we should partake in, and what type of behaviour or actions we should consider as right or wrong. Relating back to Islamization, the Islamic metaphysical worldview is found in our aqidah (theology and cosmology), tasawwuf (psychology) and syariah (jurisprudence) derived from the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
Because a worldview determines how one sees the world, information is interpreted in the light of one’s worldview too. Hence, value is attached to knowledge that one receives, because the information is processed by the knowledge-giver first before it is passed down to the knowledge-recipient. This so-called knowledge, together with the value attached to it, is then assimilated into one’s mental framework and worldview.
Due to the impact of worldviews (in particular the secular worldview) and of the values attached to knowledge that would impact one’s perspective of life, Al-Attas views the fundamental crisis of the modern-day Ummah to be epistemological in nature brought about by the contents of their education, as opposed to it being political or economic in nature. With this, Al-Attas can be regarded as the modern day Al-Ghazali, who also similarly argues about the epistemological challenge faced by the medieval Muslims with the onslaught of Greek philosophy. The difference is that this time around, the Muslims are faced with the challenge of Secularism, which he defines as the modern day manifestation of Greek philosophy.
He identifies the “confusion of knowledge” brought about by Modernist interpretation of Islam as the centre of this problem, leading to a “loss of adab” and subsequently the “rise of false leaders” who would consciously or unconsciously propagate the ongoing “confusion of knowledge” and vehemently defend this vicious cycle using their power.
What Al-Attas mean by adab is related again to the concept of worldviews, because a worldview arranges information and knowledge into ‘places’ in the mind. As such, adab according to Al-Attas is the recognition and acknowledgement of the right and proper places of things, the acquisition of good qualities and attributes as well as actions to discipline the mind and the soul, and the performance of correct and proper action as opposed to erroneous and improper ones. Adab therefore implies the knowledge and right methods of knowing which should preserve man from errors of judgement and disgrace, and by which the condition of being in the right and proper place is actualized. The proper knowledge which produces these requisite actions is wisdom (hikmah), resulting in justice (‘adl) in the individual self as well as in the state, society and natural environment.
In a nutshell, Al-Attas asserts that everything has a place that is relative to one another; which is why eagles do not fly at the level of the sparrows and why grasshoppers and eagles have their own specific role to play. Grasshoppers cannot play the role of eagles and vice-versa, hence the ignorant is not at the same level as the learned, and the words of God is not the same as the words of man. This act of knowing and the discipline in constantly putting things in their proper places is called adab. The condition brought about by the loss of adab; by playing improper roles or being ignorant of one’s proper place is defined as an injustice (zulm). As such, Al-Attas calls for the reformation of the educational philosophy and institutes of the Muslims based on the metaphysical worldview of Islam. In line with the reformation of the philosophy of education, Al-Attas also calls for sincerity in the pursuit of knowledge as well as the recognition of the proper authorities of knowledge. In the same light, Al-Attas argues against the levelling down of the classical scholars to the same same level as that of the modern day scholars. He believes that the traditional scholars are closer to the truth and hence regards the tafsir as a more reliable science as opposed to a modern hermeneutic approach to the Qur’an.
Another salient feature of the Al-Attas concept of Islamization is his careful analysis and usage of language, because language is an exposition of one’s worldview. In other words, language being the vehicle or medium which expresses the meaning of things is ultimately tied to the worldview from which it is developed from. Hence, Al-Attas calls for the careful definition of terms, and as such defines specific terms using Qur’anic terminology as understood by the classical scholars. Science according to the Islamic worldview is not the same as that which is understood by the Secular West. The same way goes for other terms like justice which is somewhat equated to equality in the West but is not understood the same way from an Islamic perspective. The Muslim world’s understanding of democracy is different from the West, because the concept of syura does not treat the learned’s vote and opinion the same way as that coming from a fool. Thus Al-Attas seeks a redefinition and reconceptualization of terms coming out of other worldviews in the Muslim’s attitude towards learning knowledge from other worldviews, as well as the correct and accurate usage of terms in expressing the meaning of things. In addition Al-Attas states that the Islamization process begins with the Islamization of languages where Qur’anic terms, which reflect the metaphysical worldview of Islam, is incorporated into languages. According to Al-Attas, this was how Islam was brought into the Malay world; by incorporating Qur’anic terms into the Malay language to bring about the Islamic metaphysical worldview in their mental framework. This is why we have approximately 100,000 Arabic terms that relate to the Islamic worldview in the Malay language.
Interestingly, Al-Attas idea of an Islamic science is often misunderstood as a fundamentalist, anti-West approach towards science. Bringing in religious elements into the scientific method seem to bring back those old memories of the oppression of science by the Church, whereby scientific endeavour is claimed to be forcefully submitted to religious dogma. Al-Attas responds to this by stating that such experiences are only unique to the West; there are no instances in the history of Islam whereby scientific endeavour is treated the same way. Al-Attas extends his argument by stating that modern science is not objective and neutral either; it is laden with the values defined by a secularist worldview that is reactionary towards the oppression of the Church. This dualism between science and religion only exists in the West due to its secularization experiences; it has no roots in Islam. In fact, Al-Attas argues that there exists a unity and harmony between science and religion within a Tauhidic framework. In other words, science as understood from the Islamic worldview is but a means to acknowledge the Omnipotence and Magnificence of the One God. Science defined by the Islamic worldview is the pursuit or unveiling of haqiqah or of truth and reality as described in our aqidah and tasawwuf. With this given definition of Islamic Science, the existence of paradise and hellfire is scientific because they are both true and real, though confined to the spiritual dimension.
However, Islamic Science is not to be understood as ridiculous empirical attempts to find out the temperature of hellfire or the speed of angels. Rather, these preposterous experiments are products of confusion, because the confused scientist reduces everything including the alam ghayb to be empirical or measurable, trapped in a Kantian framework of secular science that denies the existence of a world other than one which is empirical. On the contrary, according to the Islamic worldview, there exists a distinction between the alam syahadah or the empirical world and the alam ghayb which is confined to the spiritual dimension and therefore is not measurable. As such, Al-Attas idea of an Islamic science conforms to that which is understood by the classical scholars; an empirical study of the alam syahadah such that it would bring the scientist closer to the ultimate realization of Allah’s Existence, Names and Attributes. This would mean that science is never separated from its ultimate spiritual goal; which is why Al-Attas criticizes modern science as an obsession with the road signs, while forgetting the end destination.
Contrary to some claims that the concept of Islamization is anti-West, it is helpful to recall that Al-Attas calls for the recognition of the proper authorities of knowledge. This means that since the West are at the forefront of science and technology and hence the current authorities in that field, Muslims are urged to learn from the West. The only catch is that the Muslim should possess the metaphysical worldview necessary to filter out those theories that are not in line with our aqidah and tasawwuf. For instance, the Muslim should display particular sensitivity towards modern psychology which denies the existence of the spirit. This does not mean that modern psychology should be rejected in totality. Rather this would mean that the Muslim should acquire some form of intellectual mechanism that would filter out those theories that are not in line with the Islamic metaphysical worldview and accept those that are within the boundaries of truth. In fact, the pursuit of knowledge does not just stop at the reinterpretation of secular knowledge; the Muslim should also possess the ability to form new theories and solutions that support the Islamic metaphysical worldview. And lastly, the Muslim should realize that the ultimate purpose for knowledge is spiritual and immaterial in nature, not one that is done for employability sake only.
Conclusively, Islamization is done at a deep philosophical and epistemological level. It is preposterous to consider Islamization as a physical, superficial process, performed by incorporating certain Islamic features to make it appear Islamic; Islamization deals with the mind and the heart’s attitude towards knowledge, truth and reality. Islamization starts from within, by disciplining the heart, mind and soul with the correct philosophy, values and actions, and with the careful usage and treatment of language. Islamization deals with the unity of knowledge; all knowledge should always relate to its metaphysical foundation and to its ultimate spiritual goal. Hence there exists no dualism, no dichotomy, between religion and science.
Food for thought- With the given definition of “Islamic” and “Islamization”, are our madrasahs, while incorporating Islamic rules, regulations and rituals, but at the same time trapped in the secular dualism and dichotomy of “duniawi” sciences and “ukhrawi” sciences, be considered as a truly Islamic-learning environment? Some types of food, or rather, cold hard truths are rather difficult to digest, I think.
Hasanul Arifin is the current Vice-President of the NUS Muslim Society. His views are personal and not representative of any group or organization.
References:
The Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam by Syed Naquib Al-Attas
The Educational Philosophy and Practice of Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas by Wan Mohd Nor
Islamic Science: Towards a definition by Alpsarlan Acikgenc
Friday, May 1, 2009
What is Islamic? Part 2
Let us start dissecting what the term "Islamic" would mean by reflecting on the definition proposed by Prof Al-Attas:
Islamization is 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
First of all, the term "reason" has been utilized in this definition, which is linked to the mind or the intellect. By Quranic principles, what we mean by the intellect or the mind is the natural, unbiased intellect, or in other words, the intellect that is based on the notion of fitrah or natural state. The term intellect or the Arabic term for it, Aql, is used together with the term qalb or the heart. In other words, aql and qalb are 2 words that describe the same entity, the human soul, or in its Arabic words, the ruh.
The analogy would be describing a person as a father to his son, while at the same time also calling the person the son to his father, or the husband to his wife. It is the same person, described in different ways related to the different functions or roles that the person plays.
The same way goes for the intellect, the heart and the spirit. They are but the same entity, described in different ways based on the different roles and functions that they perform.
And when we talk about the intellect-heart-soul, in Quranic terms we cannot separate them from the Primordial Covenant that they have taken; the oath of submission to the One God. In other words, At-Tauhid is the very core message or purpose that relates to the primary function of the intellect-heart-soul.
Summarizing the above and returning to the subject matter in discussion, the term "Islamic" must of course be related to the mind, or in other words, the intellect-heart-soul. It is related to the natural state of man, or his fitrah. It relates to the Primordial Covenant that he has taken in the spiritual world. It relates to the meaning and purpose of his existence.
In summary, the term "Islamic" must relate to the metaphysics of Islam, with its core message, At-Tauhid.
So in our first attempt to dissect this term, we would conclude that the term "Islamic" would relate to the metaphysical framework as defined by the Qur'an and the Sunnah, that would relate to Man's natural state of fitrah, his meaning and purpose of existence.
Islamization is 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
First of all, the term "reason" has been utilized in this definition, which is linked to the mind or the intellect. By Quranic principles, what we mean by the intellect or the mind is the natural, unbiased intellect, or in other words, the intellect that is based on the notion of fitrah or natural state. The term intellect or the Arabic term for it, Aql, is used together with the term qalb or the heart. In other words, aql and qalb are 2 words that describe the same entity, the human soul, or in its Arabic words, the ruh.
The analogy would be describing a person as a father to his son, while at the same time also calling the person the son to his father, or the husband to his wife. It is the same person, described in different ways related to the different functions or roles that the person plays.
The same way goes for the intellect, the heart and the spirit. They are but the same entity, described in different ways based on the different roles and functions that they perform.
And when we talk about the intellect-heart-soul, in Quranic terms we cannot separate them from the Primordial Covenant that they have taken; the oath of submission to the One God. In other words, At-Tauhid is the very core message or purpose that relates to the primary function of the intellect-heart-soul.
Summarizing the above and returning to the subject matter in discussion, the term "Islamic" must of course be related to the mind, or in other words, the intellect-heart-soul. It is related to the natural state of man, or his fitrah. It relates to the Primordial Covenant that he has taken in the spiritual world. It relates to the meaning and purpose of his existence.
In summary, the term "Islamic" must relate to the metaphysics of Islam, with its core message, At-Tauhid.
So in our first attempt to dissect this term, we would conclude that the term "Islamic" would relate to the metaphysical framework as defined by the Qur'an and the Sunnah, that would relate to Man's natural state of fitrah, his meaning and purpose of existence.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
What is Islamic?
How exactly do we define something as "Islamic"? We see this all the time on the mass media, but do we know exactly what it means?
Is there such a thing called "Islamic" economics, "Islamic" culture? How about "Islamic" Science? Am I seating on an "Islamic" chair? And is the dinner that I"ll be having an "Islamic" meal? How about "Islamic" clothes, "Islamic" television? Even worse, "Islamic" terrorism?
If we are to define something as "Islamic" by the simplistic comparison of an "Islamic" past, then we can also explore the possibility of things that are not considered as "Islamic" before to be "Islamized" by improvising features that would make it "compatible" with the "Islamic" past.
I was amused when I was reading an "Islamic" magazine one day. There was this advertisement promoting "Islamic" slippers, because the design of this "Islamic" slippers bears a claimed resemblance to that of slippers won by the Prophet S.A.W.
So do we define this pair of slippers as "Islamic"?
How about the so-called "Islamic banking"? Does no riba' means that the financial transactions are "Islamic"?
Picture this. Ali wants to purchase a house. He is presented with 2 choices; he can take a housing loan from the conventional bank, or he can do so from one that is "Islamic". The house costs 100k. If Ali takes a loan from a conventional bank, he will have to pay the principle amount plus the interest imposed on him which would then raise the final cost of the house to 200k. Alternatively, Ali can take the loan from an "Islamic" bank, which he assumes would give him "barakah" apart from being riba'-free. To avoid riba', the bank purchases the property he desires on his behalf, and he would be required to pay back his interest-free debt to the bank.
The price? 200k.
Which means that if Ali chose to take a loan from the conventional bank and is able to pay his debts off faster than expected, he would be able to reduce the final cost to a price that is less than 200k. In other words, Ali would not be as financially-burdened if he had taken a loan with the conventional bank. Who knows he may be able to pay back his loans faster than he would expect it to be and reduce the final cost of the house?
Reflecting on this case, would this "Islamic" bank be considered "Islamic", despite being riba' free?
So what exactly is "Islamic"?
Food for thought, which may assist us in answering this question:
Islamization is 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 - Syed Naquib Al-Attas
Is there such a thing called "Islamic" economics, "Islamic" culture? How about "Islamic" Science? Am I seating on an "Islamic" chair? And is the dinner that I"ll be having an "Islamic" meal? How about "Islamic" clothes, "Islamic" television? Even worse, "Islamic" terrorism?
If we are to define something as "Islamic" by the simplistic comparison of an "Islamic" past, then we can also explore the possibility of things that are not considered as "Islamic" before to be "Islamized" by improvising features that would make it "compatible" with the "Islamic" past.
I was amused when I was reading an "Islamic" magazine one day. There was this advertisement promoting "Islamic" slippers, because the design of this "Islamic" slippers bears a claimed resemblance to that of slippers won by the Prophet S.A.W.
So do we define this pair of slippers as "Islamic"?
How about the so-called "Islamic banking"? Does no riba' means that the financial transactions are "Islamic"?
Picture this. Ali wants to purchase a house. He is presented with 2 choices; he can take a housing loan from the conventional bank, or he can do so from one that is "Islamic". The house costs 100k. If Ali takes a loan from a conventional bank, he will have to pay the principle amount plus the interest imposed on him which would then raise the final cost of the house to 200k. Alternatively, Ali can take the loan from an "Islamic" bank, which he assumes would give him "barakah" apart from being riba'-free. To avoid riba', the bank purchases the property he desires on his behalf, and he would be required to pay back his interest-free debt to the bank.
The price? 200k.
Which means that if Ali chose to take a loan from the conventional bank and is able to pay his debts off faster than expected, he would be able to reduce the final cost to a price that is less than 200k. In other words, Ali would not be as financially-burdened if he had taken a loan with the conventional bank. Who knows he may be able to pay back his loans faster than he would expect it to be and reduce the final cost of the house?
Reflecting on this case, would this "Islamic" bank be considered "Islamic", despite being riba' free?
So what exactly is "Islamic"?
Food for thought, which may assist us in answering this question:
Islamization is 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 - Syed Naquib Al-Attas
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
A Message of Unity
My observations and a conversation with a friend have prompted me to write this.
Firstly, I’d like to apologize for my ignorance and lack of knowledge, and I pray that Allah presents me with the gift of wisdom in the course of writing.
I am not acquainted with the Jemaah Tabligh or the Deobandi school of thought, but I would like to express my disappointment with the exclusivists attitudes displayed by some students who claim to be from this school of thought (note the careful distinction between school of thought and actions by those who CLAIM to be from the school of thought). It is not my intention to be critical and hurtful, but part of my ignorance suggests an irony with the terms ‘jemaah’ which presents a unifying connotation and ‘tabligh’ which means ‘to convey’ and is one of the characteristics of a Rasul as argued by most scholars. Unfortunately, part of my ignorance also show the lack of participation from those who claim to be from the Jemaah Tabligh in activities that require a united front from the Muslims and activities that require the conveying of the message of Islam. In particular, I am referring to the Islamic Awareness Week.
I would like to make a personal reference to sectarianism with regards to the issue above, if there is any link to be made. I was brought up with a Sufi orientation, particularly, from Tariqah Syattariyah and Tariqah Ahmadiyyah Idrisiyyah. I used to think in a black-and-white fashion, with minimal grey areas in between, and with an absolutist anti-Wahabbi fervour. Until I was exposed to different school of thoughts and became interested in the discourses of the Sufi intellectual, Syed Muhd Naquib Al-Attas.
At first I used to develop a defensive attitude towards the sharp criticisms that come from the Salafiyyah Wahabbiyah camp. And then I started to reflect; what defines a Sufi? WHO defines the Sufi? His line of thought? His opposition against the notions of Tauhid Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah by Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn Qayyim Al-Jauzi, the supposedly ‘Wahabbi’ scholars? His passionate support for the maulid, tahlil, group zikr sessions, visits to the tombs of Saints etc.? The kuffar labelling to distinguish us from the ‘terror-minded’ extremists?
Or is it his Sufi character and Sufi actions that would undoubtedly be judged by Allah s.w.t in the Hereafter? Whether he is Sufi, Salafi or Deobandi, everyone will undoubtedly be judged in the Hereafter!
And then I read Syed Naquib’s “Risalah Untuk Muslimin”, which defines the Sufi as the one who worships Allah and lives his life with Ihsan, that is, with the ability to ‘see’ Allah in everything he does, and realizes the different levels of existence and being in totality. With this definition, undoubtedly I am excluded from this categorization, because my experiences, my worship, fail to manifest Ihsan.
I am not Sufi. I am Pro-Sufi.
And with readings of this eminent scholar and the association with its scholars, I am presented with the beautiful concept of adab, that is, recognizing the proper places of things. I can recall being pulled over by Dr Khalif Muammar who would then explain the need to exercise adab towards scholars, to put them in their different places as authorities of different branches of knowledge, partly to curb my anti-Ikhwan tendencies that were growing because of my misinterpretation of Syed Naquib’s works. And I was presented that the need for us to display unity is more fardhu than the need to be associated with mazhabs, sects and school of thoughts.
This is adab, or in particular, adabul ikhtilaf (adab towards differences in opinion). This concept was not just theoretical, it was manifested in the establishment of ISTAC where scholars from different schools of thought were invited to pass on their knowledge to hungry knowledge-seekers, whether it comes from the Salafi Ismail Faruqi or the Shiite Sayyed Hossain Nasr.
My dear friends, we have the tendency to treat perception as reality. As rightly put by our friend Surya, we need to distinguish between the words of God and the words of Man. While subscribing oneself to a school of thought is natural, it should not end with condemnation of others different from us, as if ours are the absolute, when we ourselves have not attained Ihsan, let alone meet God.
How different are we from the times of Al-Ghazali where the Ummah was wrecked with sectarianism and confusion? When will the labelling stop, at the expanse of the fardhu which is unity in the Ummah?
I would refrain from quoting verses of the Qur’an to exemplify the need for adab and spirit of unity for fear that it may be treated as an authoritative speech among those who have lost their adab towards the REAL authorities of knowledge.
Unfortunately, what we face today is the opposite, that is, the loss of adab. This is due to our lack of knowledge and hikmah, our lack of passion and true love for knowledge and reading scholarly works. How would one recognize the proper places of things and proper authorities of knowledge, without KNOWING firstly what and where the proper places are?
The real challenge is not among us, but with the modern manifestation of Greek philosophy known as secularism which attempts to uproot us even from our very fundamentals of the Islamic worldview (this is rather ironic, since I myself, upon reflection, am more Secular than anything else). This overwhelming challenge comes from many fronts, in our education, in our media and even from our friends in MUIS! (as exemplified in their choice of secularist speakers in their ‘intellectual’ platforms).
Will we form a united front, a jemaah that conveys, against the challenge of secularism? Or will we still let our ‘differences’ divide us and exclude us from the bigger Ummah?*
*This is not to deny the role of uzlah or temporary seclusion as a means to strengthen our faith and spirituality to Allah.
Firstly, I’d like to apologize for my ignorance and lack of knowledge, and I pray that Allah presents me with the gift of wisdom in the course of writing.
I am not acquainted with the Jemaah Tabligh or the Deobandi school of thought, but I would like to express my disappointment with the exclusivists attitudes displayed by some students who claim to be from this school of thought (note the careful distinction between school of thought and actions by those who CLAIM to be from the school of thought). It is not my intention to be critical and hurtful, but part of my ignorance suggests an irony with the terms ‘jemaah’ which presents a unifying connotation and ‘tabligh’ which means ‘to convey’ and is one of the characteristics of a Rasul as argued by most scholars. Unfortunately, part of my ignorance also show the lack of participation from those who claim to be from the Jemaah Tabligh in activities that require a united front from the Muslims and activities that require the conveying of the message of Islam. In particular, I am referring to the Islamic Awareness Week.
I would like to make a personal reference to sectarianism with regards to the issue above, if there is any link to be made. I was brought up with a Sufi orientation, particularly, from Tariqah Syattariyah and Tariqah Ahmadiyyah Idrisiyyah. I used to think in a black-and-white fashion, with minimal grey areas in between, and with an absolutist anti-Wahabbi fervour. Until I was exposed to different school of thoughts and became interested in the discourses of the Sufi intellectual, Syed Muhd Naquib Al-Attas.
At first I used to develop a defensive attitude towards the sharp criticisms that come from the Salafiyyah Wahabbiyah camp. And then I started to reflect; what defines a Sufi? WHO defines the Sufi? His line of thought? His opposition against the notions of Tauhid Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah by Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn Qayyim Al-Jauzi, the supposedly ‘Wahabbi’ scholars? His passionate support for the maulid, tahlil, group zikr sessions, visits to the tombs of Saints etc.? The kuffar labelling to distinguish us from the ‘terror-minded’ extremists?
Or is it his Sufi character and Sufi actions that would undoubtedly be judged by Allah s.w.t in the Hereafter? Whether he is Sufi, Salafi or Deobandi, everyone will undoubtedly be judged in the Hereafter!
And then I read Syed Naquib’s “Risalah Untuk Muslimin”, which defines the Sufi as the one who worships Allah and lives his life with Ihsan, that is, with the ability to ‘see’ Allah in everything he does, and realizes the different levels of existence and being in totality. With this definition, undoubtedly I am excluded from this categorization, because my experiences, my worship, fail to manifest Ihsan.
I am not Sufi. I am Pro-Sufi.
And with readings of this eminent scholar and the association with its scholars, I am presented with the beautiful concept of adab, that is, recognizing the proper places of things. I can recall being pulled over by Dr Khalif Muammar who would then explain the need to exercise adab towards scholars, to put them in their different places as authorities of different branches of knowledge, partly to curb my anti-Ikhwan tendencies that were growing because of my misinterpretation of Syed Naquib’s works. And I was presented that the need for us to display unity is more fardhu than the need to be associated with mazhabs, sects and school of thoughts.
This is adab, or in particular, adabul ikhtilaf (adab towards differences in opinion). This concept was not just theoretical, it was manifested in the establishment of ISTAC where scholars from different schools of thought were invited to pass on their knowledge to hungry knowledge-seekers, whether it comes from the Salafi Ismail Faruqi or the Shiite Sayyed Hossain Nasr.
My dear friends, we have the tendency to treat perception as reality. As rightly put by our friend Surya, we need to distinguish between the words of God and the words of Man. While subscribing oneself to a school of thought is natural, it should not end with condemnation of others different from us, as if ours are the absolute, when we ourselves have not attained Ihsan, let alone meet God.
How different are we from the times of Al-Ghazali where the Ummah was wrecked with sectarianism and confusion? When will the labelling stop, at the expanse of the fardhu which is unity in the Ummah?
I would refrain from quoting verses of the Qur’an to exemplify the need for adab and spirit of unity for fear that it may be treated as an authoritative speech among those who have lost their adab towards the REAL authorities of knowledge.
Unfortunately, what we face today is the opposite, that is, the loss of adab. This is due to our lack of knowledge and hikmah, our lack of passion and true love for knowledge and reading scholarly works. How would one recognize the proper places of things and proper authorities of knowledge, without KNOWING firstly what and where the proper places are?
The real challenge is not among us, but with the modern manifestation of Greek philosophy known as secularism which attempts to uproot us even from our very fundamentals of the Islamic worldview (this is rather ironic, since I myself, upon reflection, am more Secular than anything else). This overwhelming challenge comes from many fronts, in our education, in our media and even from our friends in MUIS! (as exemplified in their choice of secularist speakers in their ‘intellectual’ platforms).
Will we form a united front, a jemaah that conveys, against the challenge of secularism? Or will we still let our ‘differences’ divide us and exclude us from the bigger Ummah?*
*This is not to deny the role of uzlah or temporary seclusion as a means to strengthen our faith and spirituality to Allah.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Between practicality and wisdom
I was having a conversation with a friend on what roles should a Muslim student movement play, and I proposed that the very first thing that student movements should promote is the sincere love for knowledge and the love for reading beyond our fields of study.
He disagreed, citing 'practicality' as a reason. This is because his personal observations (which I also share) show that most students today are disinterested in 'intellectual' discourses, let alone 'intellectual' conversations. Most students today prefer to take the 'practical' position of studying for their grades and wind down afterwards in leisurely activities. As such, 'extra' or 'additional' materials would just add up to the burden of the student. And as such, the Muslim student movement shld promote, as much as possible, 'leisurely' activities that most students would be ready to engage themselves in, and these activities would serve as the platform to promote 'the message of Islam'.
Along the conversation, I observe that he is more willing to look at the issue from a populist standpoint, citing 'sustainability' as the main impetus for his vision of a student movement.
I reflected over those words, and this is my response:
What we need to do firstly, is to define what 'practical' really means? Does practical mean the 'easy way', the ease of application, the ease of understanding, or in essence, ease? Does 'practicality' constitute the necessity to have a sort of a 'mass marketing' approach, where success will now be defined in terms of quantity and numbers? Is there a dualism in the realm of the ideal and the dimension of the practical? Is there a dichotomy between theory and practice, between abstract and application?
Because scholarship, in the age of ignorance and distraction, will attract only the enlightened and sincere few, will it fall under the category of 'impractical'?
What does Islam say about the 'practical'?
In a nutshell, in Islam, there is no dichotomy between theory and action, between ilm and amal. As such, the Islamic definition of 'practical' is a synergistic combination of the abstract and the application. The abstract must guide the application.
From an adab standpoint, in order for an object to be in the correct position, firstly one must know what or where exactly should the object be placed in. The act of knowing, requires knowledge! As such, knowledge IS the basis of all 'practical' applications as so to speak!
In Islam, the abstract ALWAYS guides the application. Our aqidah tauhid is made up of completely abstract ideas such that if the term 'practical' understood prior to the conversation is to be used, then aqidah is not 'practical' at all!
Many scholars argue that the reason why Islam is in decline is because there is a dearth of intellectual activity. The person who thinks of Islam in terms of 'practicality' will only focus on the rituals and the practices; without deeper understanding, without reflecting on the underlying processes that guide the rituals and practices.
In the first place, the message of Islam is indeed firmly rooted on knowledge, intellectual vigor and pursuit of knowledge. Syed Hossein Nasr, in his book "Man and Nature", speaks of the kalimah syahadah, La ilaha Illallah, as one that has very deep intellectual underpinnings, in contrast to Christianity that cannot be proven to be philosophically and epistemologically coherent with the rational mind and as such had to resort to covering up their intellectual flaws with 'the message of love' and of blind faith!
This is not inclusive of the many verses in the Qur'an and the Sunnah that cites the importance of knowledge!
If such is the case, then how can the culture of knowledge, and promoting the pursuit of it through intellectual dialogues with the learned and reading 'heavy' intellectual works still be considered 'impractical?'
Let us now analyze it from a macro perspective. A civilization, without knowledge and intellectual activity, can it be considered to be 'civilized'? What would happen to society if everyone decides to take a 'practical' outlook to life?
What would happen to society if the learned at higher learning institutes decide to take a 'practical' outlook to life? Who will guide the society forward? Fools without knowledge?
If let's say we do have a trade-off between pursuing knowledge and membership woes in astudent movement, I'd prefer to take the former than the latter.
Why?
If I'm not reading and thinking now, then would I expect the layman to do it for the community?
Then we would be facing a serious loss of adab in the society!
Knowledge and wisdom is practical.
Anything without it, is utter rubbish my friend.
If we don't vigorously seek knowledge, then in the end, we will learn Islam from the Non-Muslims.
And when I say 'seek knowledge', I also meant the scientific endeavour that precedes it, that is, the constant hunger in asking the why in everything. Not forgetting, the spiritual purification of intentions, in pursuit of ma'rifah and mahabbah of Allah s.w.t..
He disagreed, citing 'practicality' as a reason. This is because his personal observations (which I also share) show that most students today are disinterested in 'intellectual' discourses, let alone 'intellectual' conversations. Most students today prefer to take the 'practical' position of studying for their grades and wind down afterwards in leisurely activities. As such, 'extra' or 'additional' materials would just add up to the burden of the student. And as such, the Muslim student movement shld promote, as much as possible, 'leisurely' activities that most students would be ready to engage themselves in, and these activities would serve as the platform to promote 'the message of Islam'.
Along the conversation, I observe that he is more willing to look at the issue from a populist standpoint, citing 'sustainability' as the main impetus for his vision of a student movement.
I reflected over those words, and this is my response:
What we need to do firstly, is to define what 'practical' really means? Does practical mean the 'easy way', the ease of application, the ease of understanding, or in essence, ease? Does 'practicality' constitute the necessity to have a sort of a 'mass marketing' approach, where success will now be defined in terms of quantity and numbers? Is there a dualism in the realm of the ideal and the dimension of the practical? Is there a dichotomy between theory and practice, between abstract and application?
Because scholarship, in the age of ignorance and distraction, will attract only the enlightened and sincere few, will it fall under the category of 'impractical'?
What does Islam say about the 'practical'?
In a nutshell, in Islam, there is no dichotomy between theory and action, between ilm and amal. As such, the Islamic definition of 'practical' is a synergistic combination of the abstract and the application. The abstract must guide the application.
From an adab standpoint, in order for an object to be in the correct position, firstly one must know what or where exactly should the object be placed in. The act of knowing, requires knowledge! As such, knowledge IS the basis of all 'practical' applications as so to speak!
In Islam, the abstract ALWAYS guides the application. Our aqidah tauhid is made up of completely abstract ideas such that if the term 'practical' understood prior to the conversation is to be used, then aqidah is not 'practical' at all!
Many scholars argue that the reason why Islam is in decline is because there is a dearth of intellectual activity. The person who thinks of Islam in terms of 'practicality' will only focus on the rituals and the practices; without deeper understanding, without reflecting on the underlying processes that guide the rituals and practices.
In the first place, the message of Islam is indeed firmly rooted on knowledge, intellectual vigor and pursuit of knowledge. Syed Hossein Nasr, in his book "Man and Nature", speaks of the kalimah syahadah, La ilaha Illallah, as one that has very deep intellectual underpinnings, in contrast to Christianity that cannot be proven to be philosophically and epistemologically coherent with the rational mind and as such had to resort to covering up their intellectual flaws with 'the message of love' and of blind faith!
This is not inclusive of the many verses in the Qur'an and the Sunnah that cites the importance of knowledge!
If such is the case, then how can the culture of knowledge, and promoting the pursuit of it through intellectual dialogues with the learned and reading 'heavy' intellectual works still be considered 'impractical?'
Let us now analyze it from a macro perspective. A civilization, without knowledge and intellectual activity, can it be considered to be 'civilized'? What would happen to society if everyone decides to take a 'practical' outlook to life?
What would happen to society if the learned at higher learning institutes decide to take a 'practical' outlook to life? Who will guide the society forward? Fools without knowledge?
If let's say we do have a trade-off between pursuing knowledge and membership woes in astudent movement, I'd prefer to take the former than the latter.
Why?
If I'm not reading and thinking now, then would I expect the layman to do it for the community?
Then we would be facing a serious loss of adab in the society!
Knowledge and wisdom is practical.
Anything without it, is utter rubbish my friend.
If we don't vigorously seek knowledge, then in the end, we will learn Islam from the Non-Muslims.
And when I say 'seek knowledge', I also meant the scientific endeavour that precedes it, that is, the constant hunger in asking the why in everything. Not forgetting, the spiritual purification of intentions, in pursuit of ma'rifah and mahabbah of Allah s.w.t..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
