|
Thinking - Part 1
Introduction
The Islamic Method of Acquiring Knowledge
How Muslims Study Islam Today
Characteristics of the Current Islamic Thought
The Misapplication of Logic
Logic in Aqeedah
Justification Based Thinking
The Impact of Neglecting the Islamic Method of Thinking
Introduction
Islam is a unique ideology based upon a unique Aqeedah which serves
as the foundation for a unique system of rules. The
distinct nature of Islam would lead
someone to ask whether or not Islam came to also shape the thinking
process, which is a process common to all human beings.
No doubt, thinking as a function of the human being is the same for
all people. In this process, an individual transmits his or her
sensation of the reality to the brain through the senses, and then
connects this sensation to previous information about the reality to
produce a thought. Thus, a reality must exist, which a person senses
either directly or indirectly, and this reality is transmitted to
the brain through one of the senses.
However, thought does not result from the sensation alone but
results only by linking this sensation with any previous information
that the human being possesses which pertains to the reality at
hand. Thinking does not only consist of the reflection of the
reality onto the brain as the Marxists claim. The Marxists claimed
such an idea for no other reason than to prove that matter precedes
the Fikr, that the reality is the source of the culture,
civilization, social order, and awareness, and that all evolved
through the evolution of matter. Such a claim is false because the
reality and the brain are not sufficient to produce thought.
Although these two elements produce sensation, the sensation differs
from thought because sensation exists among humans as well as
animals. However, the human being is distinct in the process of
connecting the sensation with previous information to produce a new
thought.
Thinking in this method is universal, like the processes of eating
and walking. However, because human beings adopt different Aqaid(belief),
and the adoption of any Aqeedah builds a person intellectually in a
specific format, then the Aqeedah serves as the intellectual
framework that defines the outlook towards life as well as the
reference and foundation upon which the person builds all other
thoughts. Thus, the Aqeedah by its nature mandates a distinct way of
thinking. And adopting the Islamic Aqeedah in a correct intellectual
manner (based upon sound intellectual thinking and not based on
imitation of ancestors, blind faith, instinctive emotions, or
benefit) will undoubtedly change the individual into an intellectual
ideological person who thinks in a distinct method with a distinct
style and inclination. And this distinct thinking will manifest in a
distinct pattern of behaviour.
Top
The Islamic Method of Acquiring Knowledge
The method by which the Muslim acquires knowledge and thought is
critical in determining the impact of the Islamic thoughts upon the
individual. If the method of acquiring knowledge was correct and
based upon research, profound thinking, and analysis (as Allah (swt)
ordered) then it will produce effective results, and such a person
will turn into an ideological person who thinks in a distinct
manner. Allah (swt) orders the human being to think about many
aspects of His Creation in a profound and enlightened manner:
''Verily! In the creation of the heavens and
the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed
signs for men of understanding.'' [ 3:190]
''Do they not then consider the Qur'an
carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have
found within it many contradictions.'' [ 4:82]
''Tell Me! The water that you drink - is it
you who causes it to come down from the rainclouds, or are We the
Cause for it to come down?'' [ 56:68-69]
''He is created from a fluid poured forth -
proceeding from between the back bone and the ribs.'' [
86:6-7]
''Do they not look at the camels, how they
are created? And at the heaven, how it is raised? And at the
mountains, how they are rooted and fixed firm? And at the earth, how
it is spread out?'' [ 88:17-20]
In all of these ayahs, Allah directs the human being to think and
analyze in order to build the Aqeedah of Islam within him through a
definite conviction.
Thus, the method that Islam encourages in pursuing knowledge is
based upon the intellect and entails thinking, research, and
analysis. It is not built upon blind faith, emotional belief, or
submission without any discussion. Such methods will not produce a
dynamic Iman and cannot serve either as a foundation for a point of
view of life or as a foundation to build other thoughts upon. A
person who adopts Islam through these methods will remain a hostage
to the concepts that he carried from his previous background.
Although such a person may turn to Islam in a limited scope for such
aspects as his ibadat, he will continue in his thinking to
refer to other concepts. He will constantly shift between a
superficial Iman that is not built upon a correct thinking process
and indulging in discussion without a specific frame of mind, which
will lead him either to diverging or straying from Islam altogether.
And he will not escape this spiral except by either compromising
between what he adopted from Islam and whatever erroneous concepts
he already possesses in order to bridge the gap, or by separating
Islam from his thinking by restricting Islam to his rituals and
thinking in a secular or pragmatic manner, or by deciding not to
think at all except in his livelihood in order to save himself from
diverting. All of these options are incorrect and, in reality, will
not get the person out of this spiral. Eventually, this cycle with
drain the person's power, particularly his intellectual capacity,
which is the most valuable possession of man in this life. Such an
endless spiral results from an incorrect method of adopting Islam
and acquiring knowledge.
Top
How Muslims Study Islam Today
Examining Muslims today shows that the Muslims acquire Islam through
three principle methods
The Scholastic, or Academic, Method
This method emphasizes delivering Islam as a curriculum in a
scholastic format in which information, and not concepts and
thoughts, is the substance. The student-teacher relationship is the
approach of this method, and giving instructions constitutes its
style. If the student graduates, he will resemble a book that
carries information and spits it out, and Islam would consist of
nothing more than information dictated to him. Such a person would
repeat quotations from scholars and their works without any critical
thinking or consideration to the evidences and arguments simply
because he cannot do so. His capability would be confined to
relaying the information that was handed to him just as a database
would download information when programmed to do so.
Studying Islam in this erroneous method will produce neither a
thinker based on Islam nor a mujtahid, but will produce human
textbooks whom the extent of their contributions will be limited to
copying the works of others and writing some commentaries on them.
Such a method could be useful in studying an information-based
discipline such as geography or history. However, it cannot be taken
as a method of studying the Aqeedah and the thoughts because the
Islamic Aqeedah and its thoughts must be acquired intellectually
through a dynamic process of relating the thoughts to the situation
until they become firmly-rooted thoughts and not just theoretical
information carried by the person like the words on the pages of a
book.
Top
The Emotional Method
The essence of this method entails bringing stories and preaching
Islamic personalities. It depends on the emotional approach and not
the thinking process in order to push a person to function. Because
this approach realizes that emotions by their intrinsic nature can
get out of control, it depends on programming the individual in a
specific way. The individual who acquires Islam through this method
will start learning that discipline and obedience towards the
shaykhs and the mullahs is a part of
Islam.
This method is, relatively speaking, a new method because it was
influenced by the psychological-based sciences that came with
disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and education. This
approach does not regard man, life and the universe as the subject
of thinking and research but instead places the human psyche and its
development as the ultimate objective. The scope of thinking and
research remains restricted to the psyche of the individual through
promoting its positive aspects and treating its negative aspects.
Also, it connects such individuals with the mullahs
and the shaykhs emotionally in the same manner that a person is
connected with his father or therapist. As a result, those who
acquired Islam in this way are attached to certain personalities
whom they regard as holy and follow as examples without any
thinking.
Such a method does not produce intellectuals, thinkers, or mujtahids,
nor does it claim to produce them. It could be used in dealing with
the young children or with those who do not think and therefore look
forward to those who would think on their behalf and relieve them of
the burden of thinking. This approach could also apply to those who
do not think and are seeking a group of people to associate with in
order to enjoy the social environment and activities that this group
or tribe provides them, such as friendship, visits, and collective
activities involving ibadat, trips, and sports. Therefore,
this method cannot initiate the revival of the Ummah, nor can it
provide the Ummah with the thought and the awareness needed for such
a revival.
Top
The Sufi Method
This approach is influenced by the notion that the human being
consists of two components – the spirit and the material aspect –
that are mutually antagonistic. Thus, the human being has a
spiritual momentum that must be elevated, and the only way to do so
is to deprive the body of its physical needs. This process continues
until the person attains a level where he merges with God and he
sees God in himself. From the vantage point of this method, Islam
and its rules as mere signs and symbols guiding the person in his
path towards God. The value of these rules and symbols lay in
comprehending their concealed or hidden meanings, what the Sufis
call the ''Haqiqah'' or the reality. This ''Haqiqah'' is distinct from
what they refer to as the apparent meaning, which they use to denote
the Shariah.
Sufism upholds the idea of Fatalism in which everything is
predestined and man has no will of his own. Thus, the Sufis claim
that a person must surrender to his situation and cannot change it.
Furthermore, Sufism encourages the human being to live in seclusion
and give the natural phenomena in the universe a metaphysical
interpretation. The Sufis also encourage passiveness, total
surrender to the reality, and being careless about the reality
because, according to their claim, these qualities characterize the
one who suppresses himself, his desires, and his physical
inclinations. These qualities are needed for the one who wants to
conceal his mind because they constitute the first step towards
evanescence(To dissipate or disappear like
vapour) and merging into God's entity.
Some people who either failed in the life or who just look to the
Deen as an escape from the current situation may use this approach
as an outlet of contentment or solace. This is an extremely
dangerous approach because it kills the awareness and the thinking
in the Ummah and propagates passiveness and total surrender to the
status quo without any attempt to change it.
Top
Characteristics of the Current Islamic Thought
Islam today is acquired and studied through these methods, and it is
obvious by their nature that they cannot establish any Islamic
thinking. As a result of their prevalence, idleness in thinking, and
superficial and emotional thinking are encompassing the current
thinking of Muslims in spite of the tremendous number of Muslims
studying Islam in universities, masjids, and institutions, and the
increasing number of Shaykhs. These methods naturally lead to such a
situation because Islam is no longer viewed as an ideology that
shapes the point of view towards life. Rather, Islam is taken either
as rigid or static information, or as stories to appease the
emotions. Following are some characteristics of the current thinking
of the Muslim Ummah that have emerged as a result of acquiring Islam
through these methods.
Superficial Thinking
Thinking can be characterized as either superficial, profound, or
enlightened. The superficial thinking results from a lack of deep
and comprehensive study of the situation, and the individual who
resorts to this thinking is content with looking at the surface of
any event or situation. This superficial though reflects in the
current political thinking of the Muslims. When Muslims look to the
existing states in the Muslim world, they think that these states
are independent and that the rulers have their own will simply
because they each have their own borders, flag, constitution, and
membership in international organizations. However, if the same
person who reaches this conclusion would spend time studying the
reality of these states, how they were developed, and their
relationship with the West, he would not conclude that these states
are independent.
Another example of superficial thinking is claiming that Democracy
parallels the Shura that Islam calls for based solely upon
the fact that Islam recommends consultation and gives the Ummah the
right to choose the Khalifah. However, closely examining the
ideological basis of Democracy in a profound way will reveal that
Democracy is a specific system based on the notion that the human
being has the right to make his own laws and decide for himself his
own standards of right and wrong. This notion contradicts the basis
of the Islamic system, which states that only Allah (swt) has the
right to make laws and decide what is halal and haram
while the human being has only the right to understand and implement
these laws. Not only do the Democratic and Islamic systems differ in
the source of their laws but in the process of extracting the laws
from the legal sources. Whereas in Democracy the process of
extracting laws is governed by the prevailing interests of the
society, in Islam the process of extracting laws in done through
ijtihad, which is a specific process that is dictated by the Arabic
language and the strength of the evidence from the legal text.
Furthermore, the institution of Shura as defined by Islam is
distinct from the functions of the Congresses and Parliaments of the
West.
Still another example of superficial thinking among Muslims is seen
in the evaluation of some individuals and movements by their
external features without attempting to study what they call for,
how they think, how they were established, and other factors, in a
profound and critical way. No one can be a good person by the mere
fact that he is a member of a specific group or because he has a
long beard or holds a religious position. By the same token, no
group or institution can be considered Islamic simply because it
carries the name of Islam and its founders are Muslims. Both cases
require probing beyond the apparent features and scrutinizing any
individual or group that claims the name of Islam.
Because this type of thinking requires very little effort, most
people find its utilization easy. And with the passage of time,
individuals will gradually be content with this type of thinking if
left to their own devices. This type of thinking has to be fought
because of its lack of productivity, both for the individual as well
as for the Ummah.
Contrary to the superficial thinking, the profound thinking is
produced by conducting a deep study of the issue at hand as well as
by analyzing and scrutinizing both the situation and the information
related to the situation deeply. In examining a table, the
superficial thinker would focus only on the apparent features, and
would thus conclude that a table with a brownish colour and four
supports exists. A deep thinker would scrutinize the table more
profoundly, which would result in information about the table's
physical composition, the specific type of wood used, and other
physical parameters such as its hardness and its dimensions. Thus,
the deep thinking is sufficient in fields such as chemistry or
physics. However, due to its nature, the profound thinking does not
require from the individual in the lab to think about other issues
beyond the material at hand, such as where the material came from or
its relationship to the surroundings.
The highest level of thinking is the enlightened or comprehensive
thinking. This type of thinking is needed in areas or fields which
require thinking deeply about a specific situation or issue in
addition to thinking comprehensively by connecting the issue or
situation at hand to other situations or issues. Areas such as
political analysis and jurisprudence require this type of thinking.
In the field of jurisprudence, the person must utilize the
enlightened thinking in order to think about the situation, refer
back to the legal texts addressing the situation, understand and
analyze the texts according to a specific methodology, and then
apply this understanding to the situation. In the example of the
table, an enlightened thinker would think deeply about the table
with all of its physical features, in addition to thinking about
where and how the table was constructed, where the material used to
construct the table came from, and the relationship of the table to
the rest of the furniture and the overall setup of the room.
To more vividly illustrate the distinction between the three types
of thinking, some examples are needed. Calling to establish a
Palestinian state in the West bank and Gaza would constitute
superficial thinking. As a result, a superficial person will
perceive only the surface value of this slogan and will look to
those who call for such a state as heroes and saviours. However,
thinking deeply about this state in terms of its resources and
internal situation would lead a profound thinker to conclude that
such a state is impossible to emerge and sustain itself, and that
the call to establish such a state is a mission impossible. And an
enlightened thinker would not only scrutinize the Palestinian state
itself but would connect this situation with the plans of the
superpowers in the region and their relationship with the different
parties in the Middle East. Based on this comprehensive research,
the enlightened thinker would conclude that the issue extends beyond
the impossible and dreaming about impossible things. From this
context, the issue of the Palestinian state will be viewed as part
of a wider plan that calls for establishing a Palestinian entity,
either as a buffer zone or as a connection between Israel and the
other neighbours, where the one who calls for such a state is only a
player in this game.
Another example to illustrate the distinction between the three
types of thinking is seen in the Missionary invasion of the Uthmani
Khilafah(the last Islamic State) which
began in the 17th century. A superficial thinker would look at such
a situation as a group of people who came to the Islamic State,
opened up various missionary organizations, associations, and
schools, in order to preach Christianity and endorse education in
various sciences. The deep thinker would scrutinize these Missionary
movements and examine the reality of their organizations and their
ideas. Based on this profound study, such a person would conclude
that these Missionary organizations were in fact calling for
Nationalism, Western Culture, and other corrupt ideas that seeped
into the thinking of the Muslims. And the enlightened thinker would
scrutinize the nature and reality of these movements and what they
were calling for, in addition to thinking about the origins of such
a movements, their ultimate objective, and their relationship to the
West and its objectives. Such a comprehensive thinking process which
would encompass all the issues related to the Missionaries would
conclude that the Missionary movement was a continuation of the
West's objective of diverting the Muslims from their ideology with
the overall objective of dismantling the Khilafah and colonizing the
Muslim world.
The superficial thinking has to be fought, and the Muslims must be
trained to think not only profoundly but comprehensively because
such an enlightened thinking process is the only way for the Muslim
Ummah to understand its situation and its course of action in this
life. The development of profound and enlightened thinking can
materialize by presenting case studies and continuing to work with
the individuals until they will never be content with their thinking
until they think in a profound and enlightened manner.
Top
Thinking Based on Imitation
When the thinking level declines, the individual will be unable to
conduct any original research on his own. In this situation, the
individual will adopt already-existing ideas established by others
when faced with any case or issue that requires any type of original
thought or research. Whether in political, legal, or any other
issues, such a person will turn to others to provide him with the
answers. And after taking the answer or opinion from others, he will
defend and justify this opinion as if it was his own without
researching the related evidences, only because of his trust in the
one who established the opinion.
This type of thinking is widespread among Muslims in spite of their
large numbers, whereas the amount of original thinking is almost
non-existent. Such taqleed (imitation) is acceptable in
fiqh for those unable to conduct ijtihad and is also
acceptable for the mujtahid is some issues where he does not
have to exercise his own ijtihad. However, this type of thinking is
not allowed in the Aqeedah, as it is well known that Muslims are
prohibited from adopting their Aqeedah through taqleed. Such
an approach towards the Aqeedah originated from the non-Muslims who
simply follow their ancestors without initiating any type of
thinking or research into their beliefs. Furthermore, the definition
of Iman leaves no room for the taqleed in the Aqeedah because
Iman is defined as the conclusive belief that agrees with the
reality and is based on conclusive evidences. Taqleed cannot
establish such an Iman because it requires thinking about the issue
and building one's case based on daleels that establish the
conclusive belief. Therefore, it is incorrect for anyone to say ''I
believe in Allah and the Messenger'' because his father or shaykh
said so.
Regarding the political thinking and the intellectual issues, the
prevalence of taqleed in these areas is a strong indicator of the
declined status of Muslims. The Muslim cannot shift aimlessly from
one opinion to another while having no opinion or original thinking
of his own. Rather, he must build his culture and thinking based on
original research and study. If the Ummah carries a creative way of
thinking, its members will no longer constitute a discordant mass of
bodies that will shuttle from one opinion to another like cattle.
Furthermore, the members of such an Ummah will no longer accept for
themselves to follow personalities, which will translate into a
creative Muslim Ummah.
Because of the taqleed(imitation) and the
lack of thinking and creativity, the thinking of Muslims was reduced
to a personalized type of thinking that became connected with
personalities and not ideas. Nowadays the idea carries no value
unless it is connected to a well-established or high-ranking
personality. And any existing research in this case will focus on
the person and not the thought (i.e., the discussion will emphasize
''Who said what'' rather than ''What is being said.''). Any person who
opposes the opinions of such personalities will be attacked
severely, and the ''character assassination'' will dominate the focus
of any discussion. At the end, the individual will view the correct
idea as the idea that comes from a personality that he respects, and
the wrong idea is the idea that comes from a person that he does not
respect. And the only way to explain the fallacy of any idea in this
context will be to focus the discussion on the personalities.
Such an approach indicates the lack of thinking among Muslims. When
the Muslims had a high level of understanding, they would evaluate
the personalities based on the ideas they carried and not vice
versa. Ali (ra) used to say, ''Recognize the
truth first; then, afterwards, you will be able to recognize the
people who adhere to the truth.'' Furthermore, they
realized that digging into the intentions of the individuals and
discussing their personalities was not their function because only
Allah knows the intentions and what is hidden in the hearts of men.
Even when some Muslim scholars began documenting the reliability of hadith reporters, they never probed into the hidden or attempted to
decipher the intentions of the reporters. Instead, they addressed
each reporter from the perspective of his truthfulness, accuracy,
and his memorization capability in relaying the report.
Therefore, the entire discussion should focus on the issues and the
ideas where the evidence, and not a personality, serves as the
reference. Only through independent thinking and encouraging the
sound and original research can Muslims break free of this imitation
and the intellectual tribalism3 that results from it.
Top
Thinking in Areas That do not Require Thinking
In everyday life, there are areas that require deep and
comprehensive thinking, such as political events or conducting
research in the lab, or searching for the evidence in a legal
matter. In addition, there are situations that need to be addressed
by thinking, such as how to deal with an attack and what specific
strategies and measures to undertake. Such an incident was
demonstrated by the Prophet (saaw) during the Battle of Al-Khandaq,
in which the Prophet (saaw) initiated numerous tactics which
required extensive thinking about the situation in order to
effectively counter the attack upon Medina.
On the other hand, there are situations and issues which do not
require thinking. One does not need to conduct lengthy experiments
and engage in extensive study to prove that water fulfills the need
of a thirsty person or to prove that any nation must protect itself
against its enemies. Such issues are plainly obvious from everyday
experience. Also, when a Muslim hears the Adhan(call
for prayer), he does not need to think about how to perform
the wudu(ablution) because this action is
so well-known to him that he automatically does it without any need
to think about the movements. While a new Muslim may initially
require a few demonstrations of the wudu, he does not need to
philosophize the wudu every time he needs to perform it.
However, Muslims lost this fine line that separates what requires
thinking from what does not require thinking. As a result, Muslims
began discussing in a very lengthy and detailed fashion issues that
do not require such detail. A shaykh would exhaust one year
explaining the rules of wulu to the people, although a few practical
demonstrations would suffice. In addition, other individuals would
write volumes upon volumes of literature about wudu, taharah, the
movements of the salat(prayer), and other
such issues.
Similarly, Muslims have begun discussing trivial issues that keep
them occupied from discussing more critical issues that affect their
status quo. Nowadays, one finds extensive research and books written
discussing the beard, its length, its shape, and whether we are
allowed to dye it and with what colour. Also, one would find lengthy
research on moving the index finger during the tashahud(
'athahiyaathu' in Dhivehi), whether it should be raised or
wiggled, and whether the finger should be straight or slightly bent.
On the other hand, no serious and comprehensive discussion or
research exists about issues such as the oil industry, who has the
right to own it, and its relationship to the state. To illustrate
this trend, a journal published by the religious establishment of
Saudi Arabia a series of articles discussing in extensive detail the
possibility of landing on the moon and whether or not the earth
revolves around the sun, while ironically no article exists
discussing the Hukm Sharii of the Peace Process or the Hukm Sharii
regarding the exploitation of the Ummah's resources by the current
regimes.
Such a distorted thinking process exists despite the fact that Islam
teaches Muslims how to prioritize their issues. Within this context,
a man found a date and came to Umar asking him what he should do
with it. The man was referring to a rule in Islam which states that
if one finds something, he needs to identify it for a period of
time, and if no one comes to claim it, then the object is the
property of the one who found it and he would have to pay 20% of its
value as Zakat. Umar told that man, ''Eat it,'' In another incident,
after the murder of Husayn ibn Ali, a man came to Abdullah ibn Umar
during the following Hajj and asked him whether he can kill a
mosquito while in the state of ihram within the borders of Al-Haram.
Abdullah ibn Umar asked him, ''Where did you come from?'' and the man
replied, ''I came from Kufa.'' Instead of answering him, Abdullah ibn
Umar addressed those sitting next to him: ''Look to those people!
They shed the blood of the grandson of Rasulullah (saaw), and now he
wants to ask about the blood of a mosquito.''
Top
Thinking in Metaphysics
In order to address this issue, one must realize that the thinking
process requires that the individual sense and comprehend the issue
at hand. No one can think about issues that are beyond the scope of
their senses unless an authentic evidence regarding such issues
comes from a source that the rationale has already established as
credible. Within this context, Muslims believe in the Jinn, the
Angels, the Day of Judgment, Paradise and Hell-fire, and other
aspects of the Ghaib(unseen). The belief
in such realities is built upon the conclusive evidence that is
established through the intellect, to be distinguished from
metaphysics, which is based upon pure speculation.
Recently, the metaphysical thinking has seeped into the thinking
process of the Muslims. Nowadays, the Muslims manifest the
metaphysical thinking in two aspects:
1. Thinking in issues that lay beyond the senses and are part of the
Ghaib(unseen). Failure to understand the
limits of the thinking process and the human mind has resulted in
Muslims discussing issues related to the Ghaib using their own mind
and senses. As a result, issues such as the jinn occupy a very large
space in the thinking of Muslims, to the extent that some even claim
that they can communicate with the jinn. Another example of such an
issue is the discussion that revolves around the Attributes of Allah
and whether or not they are part of His Entity. Although Muslims
must believe in the existence of such realities, this belief must be
limited to the text of the evidence and cannot venture beyond it
because the thinking process requires sensation in order to occur.
Attempting to initiate the thinking process upon realities that the
human mind cannot comprehend or sense will result in speculative
imagination devoid of any thought.
Many reasons contributed to such a level of thinking. One important
reason is that discussing the current situation of the Muslim Ummah
may lead to some problems with the ruling elite. As a result, people
would shift towards such issues because they may not be problematic
to the ruling establishments. In fact, the ruling elite may even
encourage this type of thinking to distract the Muslims from the
real issues facing them. Another reason is that the low level of
thinking that exists among Muslims may push the individuals to
discuss such issues because metaphysics does not require serious
thinking, which is difficult for many people to initiate. All that
metaphysical thinking requires is bringing stories and unleashing
the imagination without the need to establish any concrete evidence
to build a case or argument, which is something that anyone can do
with relative ease and comfort.
What Muslims fail to realize is that the Qur'an and the Sunnah
themselves shifted their thinking away from the direction of
metaphysics. Allah (swt) in Surat Al-Kahf, after talking about the
number of people who were inside the cave, said:
''(Some) say they are three, the dog being
the fourth among them; (others) say they were five, the dog being
the sixth – guessing at the unseen; (yet others) say they were
seven, the dog being the eighth. Say (O Muhammad), 'My Lord knows
best their number; none knows them but a few.' So debate not (about
their number, etc.) except with the clear proof.'' [
18:22] Furthermore, a man came to the Prophet (saaw) asking him
about the time of the Day of Judgment. The Prophet (saaw) asked him,
''What did you prepare for it?''
Thus, the Prophet (saaw) shifted the man's thinking from the Ghaib
to the practical aspect of the issue.
2. Neglecting the reality of Cause and Effect and Behaving based on
Qadriyya Ghaibiyya. Qadriyya Ghaibiyya refers to shifting the
connection of the actions from the Hukm Sharii to what someone may
imagine as the Knowledge of Allah. Examples of such a mentality are
claiming that the current backwardness and decline of the Muslims is
their destiny that cannot be addressed or changed, or using the
Duaa as the only means of changing the
situation of Muslims without initiating any action, or claiming that
the jinn and the shayateen are the cause of some diseases and
that the only way to cure the disease is to communicate with them.
Muslims must believe that Cause-and-Effect is a natural law that
Allah (swt) set in this universe. The effect will occur only if the
cause exists. For example, victory cannot materialize unless its
causes exist, such as the army's firm conviction in its objectives,
the shrewdness of the leaders, and the level of preparation and
planning. Also, curing a disease has a cause, which is the correct
medication. The Prophet (saaw) said, ''O
servant of Allah! Seek medical treatment since Allah created the
disease and the medication.'' In one incident, a man came
to the Prophet (saaw) asking him to make Du'a to his camel to cure
her from a skin disease. The Prophet (saaw) told the man, ''Add
to your Dua some tar,'' indicating that the Du'a by itself
will not accomplish the objective. In another incident, the Prophet
(saaw) told a man who wanted to unleash his camel while depending on
the tawakul to protect her, ''Leash her, and
then have the tawakul.''
By the same token, reviving the Muslims from their current status
quo will occur not by Du'a and ibadah alone but through initiating
the change and working towards creating the revival. Allah (swt)
says clearly:
''Allah does not change the situation of any
people until they change what is within themselves.'' [
13:11] However, instead of facing their problems and acquiring the
correct ways and means in order to reach the solution, Muslims chose
the easy route and began depending on the Ghaib, thinking that this
is the Iman. Similarly, they began thinking that any other approach
constitutes shirk or denying Allah's Will, although Allah ordered
the Muslims in many ayahs to acquire the requirements and the causes
to achieve their objectives and mentioned explicitly that He does
not change His Law. For example, Allah (swt) mentions regarding the
preparation:
''And prepare all you can of power,
including steeds of war to alert the enemy of Allah and your enemy...''
[Q 8:60]
The Prophet (saaw) also instructed the Muslims to acquire these ways
and means and said, ''Act. Each one will be
facilitated towards what he was created for.'' Thus,
acquiring these requirements and complying with the law of Cause and
Effect is not shirk and does not constitute weakness in the Iman.
Rather, such an approach manifests the correct tawakul and the
correct Iman. And through this approach, the discussion of the
course of action for Muslims will be based on the Hukm Sharii and
not the Will or Knowledge of Allah, which is part of the Ghaib.
This type of thinking also manifests itself in believing that some
individuals, either in their life or after their death, possess some
supernatural powers that can reach the level of curing people or
bringing good luck. All of these concepts are non-Islamic and
constitute shirk. By believing in individuals with such
capabilities, Muslims do not differ from those who sanctify
individuals to the level of Godhood.
Top
Mixing between the Scientific and Intellectual Thinking
As previously mentioned, the intellectual way of thinking is a
process which involves the reality, a sound human mind, senses which
transfer the reality to the mind as a sensation, and previous
information which the mind links to the sensation to produce a
thought. Thus, the intellectual method entails thinking about the
reality at hand or the issue as it is. However, the scientific
method is based upon performing experiments and reaching a
conclusion based on the data collected. Any kind of scientific
research does not depend on the situation or the reality as is but
necessitates subjecting the material under scrutiny to an
environment different than its natural environment and then
observing the impact of these imposed conditions on the material.
This process is referred to as the scientific experiment, which
constitutes the cornerstone of the scientific method of thinking.
The scientific method is a branch of the rational method because,
like the rational method, the scientific process requires a reality,
senses in order to perceive the reality, and a human brain in order
to perform the research and analysis to arrive at a conclusion.
However, the difference lay in the type of reality involved, and as
a result the type of research and analysis performed in the
scientific process will differ from the rational process. The
scientific method cannot be used in all disciplines because not
everything can be subjected to experimentation. While areas of
knowledge such as physics, biology, and engineering, can be
discussed based on experimentation, areas of knowledge such as
philosophy, history, economics, law, and doctrines of belief cannot
be discussed using the scientific method because such disciplines
are not tangible material that can be subjected to experimentation
and measurement. For example, scientifically testing the effect of
an ideology on the progress of a nation would require subjecting one
nation to an ideology and stripping another nation of the ideology
in order to determine whether an ideology would result in progress.
Such a study is beyond the scope of the experimental method because
one cannot forcibly subject nations, individuals, or societies to
conditions in such a manner. However, one can observe nations or
individuals as they are or throughout history and arrive at a
rational conclusion that the ideology results in progress for a
nation.
Another crucial difference between the scientific and rational
method is in the type of facts or conclusions reached by the two
types of thinking. The scientific method leads to establishing
relative and not absolute facts because it is based on relative
measurements. For example, the conclusion that mercury is very dense
is not an absolute fact but a relative fact because the density is
relative to the density of water. No fact or conclusion can be
considered scientific unless it is based on such relative measures.
In contrast, the rational method arrives at absolute facts because
it entails studying the reality as it is and not comparing the
reality to something else. Thus, the conclusion that the earth has
gravity is an absolute truth that can be reached at by observing
things falling towards the earth's centre. However, scientific
research is required to measure gravity and quantify it.
The scientific method was embraced and promoted by the West after
witnessing its impact on scientific and technological advancement.
However, the West extended the application of this method to areas
where it cannot be used. As a result, many non-scientific areas of
knowledge were given the term ''scientific,'' such as anthropology,
psychology, sociology, politics, and education, despite the fact
that human beings, human behaviour, economy, society, and politics,
are intellectual fields that lay beyond the ability of science to
address. Although these areas of knowledge require research,
observation, and analysis, the type of research and analysis is not
scientific.
Many Muslims were confused by these areas of knowledge and began
studying such ''soft sciences'' as global disciplines that are not
influenced by the point of view of life. In reality, such areas of
knowledge were specific to the Western point of view and culture.
Those who laid them down, such as Freud, Adam Smith, and
Machiavelli, were not scientists but Western thinkers who studied
human beings, human behaviour, societies, and their relationships,
based on Western culture. And the conclusions that they reached were
also based on Western culture.
This mix between what should and should not be discussed
scientifically was carried to Muslims, who began discussing
intellectual issues from a scientific approach. For example, Muslims
began discussing the ''Scientific Miracles of the Qur'an,'' not
realizing that the Qur'an is not a book of physics or chemistry but
rather, as Allah (swt) described it, ''Hudan lil-Muttaqin,''
which discusses truth vs. falsehood, halal and haram, and the
previous prophets and nations in order to take lessons from them.
All that is mentioned about some natural phenomena, such as rain,
the shape of the earth, and the development of the foetus, was
mentioned as a proof of Allah's existence and signs of His Might and
Wisdom. Thus, the Sahabah understood the Qur'an much more than the
Muslims today, even though Muslims in today's age witnessed, and in
some instances pioneered, great advancements in science and
technology. The Sahabah studied the Qur'an and the Sunnah and
implemented them as orders and systems that governed the society,
whereas Muslims today began discussing the Qur'an and Sunnah using
the scientific approach and started holding conferences and
publishing books to this end, which distracted Muslims from their
objective of establishing the Islamic system and carrying Islam to
the world.
Islam clearly demarcated the lab and the physical universe, and not
the Qur'an and the Sunnah, as the scope of applied and experimental
science. It was reported in a hadith that a group of people came to
the Prophet (saaw) asking him about the pollination of dates. He
instructed them not to pollinate the date palms themselves since the
wind may carry the seeds. That year there was no harvest; they
informed him of this, and he told them, ''You know best regarding
your worldly affairs,'' referring to the scientific research. Also,
Imam Muslim reported that the Prophet (saaw) said:
''I am a human being like you, but I receive
the revelation. If I instructed you on something related to the Deen,
then take it, but if I instructed you on something related to your
worldly affairs, then you know best.''
Therefore, Islam clearly distinguished between the scope of science
and technology, which is the lab and the physical universe, and the
scope of the Deen, which is the life affairs and the systems
governing the relationships and issues the human being faces. In
spite of this distinction, there are so many shaykhs issuing fatwas
on scientific issues based on their understanding of some ayahs and
hadiths, such as the rotation and shape of the earth, the atom, the
foetus and its development, and many other scientific issues. In
addition, many Muslims are busy digging into the Qur'an and the
Sunnah for a cure for cancer or diabetes rather than conducting the
necessary research in the lab. The problem with such an approach is
that those scientific fatwas may become part of the Deen itself, the
way it happened with the Church during the European Middle Ages.
Such a trend could lead either to not accepting any scientific
theory or conclusion unless a fatwa exists supporting it, or a
potential conflict between the Deen and science if the scientific
research proves the error in any fatwa.
When Europe experienced their Dark Ages, the Muslims had the
privilege of not experiencing it because they possessed the clear
distinction between the scope of scientific thinking and the scope
of the Deen. In addition, the Muslims understood the purpose of the
Qur'an and the Sunnah, which was to govern the lives of the people
and not to serve as the subject of laboratory research. However, it
seems that the West is pushing the Muslims to undergo the same Dark
Ages by blurring the distinction between the scientific and the
rational thinking.
Top
Emotional Thinking
This type of thinking can manifest in two aspects:
1. Wishful Thinking: When a person possesses an emotional
inclination to reach a specific conclusion, he wishes the events to
lead to this result. As a result, he would start interpreting
everything based upon this wish. The intellect's role in this type
of thinking is to justify the wished-for result and attempt to prove
its case. For example, some people have a certain loyalty to a
regime, and based upon this emotional attachment, they would wish
that this regime is a just system. Based upon this wish, they would
conclude that a certain regime is just, and they would justify the
actions of this regime in order to fit this conclusion, even if this
justification amounted to denying clear facts altogether.
The wishful thinking also manifests in the wish of many Muslims for
a certain state to be an Islamic State. Living under the Islamic
System is the wish of every Muslim, but for some, this wish may
incline them to label any regime as Islamic based upon the presence
of certain symbols of Islam. Such people would then use the
existence of these symbols to claim that a particular state is
Islamic. And if the state in question is in reality a Kufr state,
such individuals would try to justify this in order to support their
wished-for conclusion that the state is Islamic.
This type of thinking leaves the emotions a free reign to determine
and decide. In most instances, the emotion conceals or overshadows
the intellect, and as a result, the person will not perceive the
reality as is. Instead, the person will see the reality as he likes
it to be. It was reported that the Prophet (saaw) said, ''The
Qadi must not judge while in a state of anger.''
Similarly, a judge cannot preside over a court session while in a
state that may clout his judgment, such as hunger, anxiety, or
extreme happiness. Thus, Islam makes it clear that a person cannot
make a sound judgment or issue decisions if his emotions control
him.
2. Addressing the People in an Emotional Way: Usually, one
can address the people directly by presenting the facts the way they
are without paying too much attention to the eloquence of the
presentation because the primary concern is the soundness and
correctness of what is being presented. However, there could be
speeches that are addressing the emotions instead of the intellect.
Once a person is exposed to this type of speech, his senses to the
reality will be weakened because his emotions are controlling him.
As a result, the eloquence of the speech will be controlling him.
For example, consider the following two texts taken from different
sources, which both address the issue of defining the society and
defining the basis of human relationships:
Text 1
''While the human being is in need of quiet moments, of time to
reflect alone, or privacy and solitude, he is by nature a social
being. To live in society and interact with others is a natural or
inborn characteristic of human beings. The human being was not
forced into being social nor did he simply learn by experience that
he cannot live in total isolation and solitude. Neither did he just
use his reason to decide that it was better if he cooperated and
shared with others. One of the reasons for saying that social life
is natural is suggested in the noble verse of the Qur'an:
''It is We who portion out among them their
livelihood in the life of this world, and We raise some of them
above others (from the standpoints of possibilities and capacities)
in degrees, so that some might obtain labor of others.''
[ 43:32] This suggests that people are not created alike in their
possibilities and capabilities. If people were all alike, there
would be no need to obtain any service or help from others. God has
created people with different physical, spiritual, intellectual, and
emotional capacities. He has made some superior in some ways and
others superior in other ways. He has thus made all need each other
and naturally inclined to interact with one another. This is thus
the basis of the social or interconnected life of human beings.''
Text 2
''A society is composed of human beings, thoughts, sentiments, and
the system. This is a general definition arrived at by studying any
society and placing into consideration the targeted society we seek
to change. To illustrate this further, the sum total of individuals
would form a group. If permanent relationships exist between them,
they would be a society regardless of their number. The existence of
this relationship is achieved through the common interest between
them, whether they are beneficial or not. The internal momentum
within the person to acquire benefit is classified as vital energy.
Every human being has energy that requires satisfaction.
Consequently, from this internal momentum, feelings naturally
emanate. In the case of animals, the satisfaction will be directed
by biological needs and trial and error. In the case of human
beings, the satisfaction of the needs will be achieved through a
given set f concepts that are adopted. These concepts would identify
for the person the kinds of emotions that pushes him to satisfy his
needs and how to satisfy them. According to these concepts, Man will
organize his interests. Based on this, relationships between human
beings will arise. This results in the development of relationships
based on certain ideas, emotions, and systems being implemented.
Thus, the element which renders people as a society is the
relationships. Therefore, entering the society is nothing more than
addressing the existing relationships amongst the people in the
society.''
The first piece of text addresses primarily the emotions and the
imaginations, much like any work of art or literature. Its concern
is to attract the audience or the reader by its glamour. An Arabic
proverb mentions: ''The most beautiful poetry is the one that is most
full of lies.'' The proverb is alluding to the many features of
Arabic eloquence, such as hyperbole, simile, and metaphor, which may
lead the poet to say something that has little or relation to the
reality. Allah (swt) also says in the Qur'an:
''As for the poets, the deviants follow
them. Don't you see that they speak about every subject in their
poetry, and that they say what they do not do? Except those who
believe and perform righteous deeds, and remember Allah often, and
reply back (in poetry) to the unjust poetry. And those who do wrong
will come to know by what overturning they will be overturned.''
[ 26:224-227]
However, reading the second text illustrates that its contents focus
on the facts without using any tools to try and sway the reader. It
does not pay any attention to the eloquence, and as a result, the
reader will focus only on the ideas that are presented.
The Ummah will appreciate this emotional style in addressing the
people if it is declined in its intellect because this style does
not require any effort to comprehend. Those people who are searching
solely for something that provides them with a positive feeling
would easily gravitate towards this manner of presenting ideas. In
Arabic Literature, the most beautiful poems are those said by poets
before Islam. When the poet accepts Islam, his poetry will not
stimulate the emotions as passionately because the poet would have
more concern towards lying and the restrictions of the Halal and
Haram. Comparing the poems of one poet, such as Hassan bin Thabit,
before and after he became Muslim, illustrates the difference.
Before Islam, his poetry was full of eloquence but lacked any
substance; after becoming Muslim, his poetry was full of substance
but had less emotional flair.
Any Ummah that seeks revival would restrict such a style to
literature and would not use it in intellectual issues, legal
discussions, or political analysis. Also, such an Ummah would leave
no room for emotional or wishful thinking. A survey of the writings
of Muslim scholars demonstrates this. Scrutinizing the books of
Fiqh, Tafseer, Usul, and history from the 4th
century and earlier shows that these works were written using a very
high intellectual standard. After this era, when the signs of
decline began to emerge, the style became influenced by the emotions
and paying too much attention to the eloquence of the speech at the
expense of conveying the ideas in a clear and concise manner. Even
some intellectual issues such as Fiqh and Usul were written in a
poetic format, which not only defeated the purpose of poetry but
caused the level of thinking among the people to decline.
Recently, this approach spread all over the Muslim world, to the
extent that Friday Khutbas, speeches,
writings, and lectures, became emotional and very rich in eloquence
but devoid of any substance or clear thoughts. By the time Muslims
became accustomed to this style of presentation, they turned away
from any attempt to address them intellectually and to push them to
think. Some even went as far as claiming that the Deen cannot be
taken intellectually but through faith, or saying that there can be
no intellectual research in issues regarding the Deen, or claiming
that the thinking of Muslims cannot be based on the Deen. Such
claims amount to no less than separating the Deen from the life, and
such an approach will cause the Deen to lose its impact.
Addressing this problem necessitates reviving of the Islamic
thinking based on the Islamic Aqeedah and to initiate the thinking
process until it becomes a norm while trying to avoid addressing the
people emotionally. Poetic style and emotional language have no
space in areas that require serious discussion which utilize high
intellectual standards.
Top
Narrow Thinking
Narrowness in thinking refers to the inability in conducting
comprehensive research in different issues. It could either result
from the strong attachment to the status quo or from limiting the
discussion to the status quo, or the lack of information or sources
of knowledge to the individual. Such constraints eventually shift
the individual into an isolated person who restricts the scope of
his thinking to the status quo. In fact, this type of thinking is
similar to the superficial thinking, and it could be one of the
reasons behind the superficial thinking.
This type of thinking is distinct from being specialized in one area
because specialization means to focus in one aspect in order to
develop creativity in a specific field. Such a person is not narrow
in the scope of his thinking but is focused in one aspect. However,
the narrow thinker cannot think in any issue, general or specific,
and the scope of his thinking is limited and usually does not extend
beyond thinking in his livelihood and related matters. For example,
a merchant may know all of his customers and their needs, as well as
the details of his merchandise. However, the same person, if narrow
in his thinking, would avoid any intellectual discussion. If he
participates in any such type of discussion, his participation will
be superficial and for the sole purpose of showing that he has
something to say.
The Imperialists during the Colonial Era encouraged this approach
among Muslims, and the rulers who presided over the people on behalf
of the Colonialists enforced strict laws that prevented people from
discussing certain issues seriously, such as politics, economics,
and the legal system. Even the intelligentsia, or the educated
class, were banned from any intellectual or profound discussion,
unless their discussion would reach a pre-set conclusion set by the
regime. For this reason, one witnesses the conferences in the Muslim
World devoid of any thinking in such issues. Any discussion in any
Arab parliament or economic seminar will result in nothing but
superficial discussion because those who are organizing these
functions know that they have no power and are tools used by the
ruler to enhance his image. Such a restrictive policy by the regimes
has resulted in narrowness among the educated people.
When it comes to the common people, their situation is even worse.
The regimes caused them to stay away from anything related to the
public affairs while keeping them occupied with their livelihood.
Combined with the oppression and the influence of the media, this
condition results in a state of fear among the people that prevents
them from thinking and results in viewing the world from a very
narrow angle, which itself is based on a pre-set point of view.
Institutions such as the media and schools provide the people with
data on a selective basis, magnifying some issues while trivializing
others. All of this has produced closed minds which analyze
everything according to the ''Conspiracy Theory.'' Such a theory
prevents the people from understanding the real causes of their
problems, and it refers all the problems facing the people to an
imaginary enemy manufactured either by the regime to preoccupy the
people or manufactured by the people themselves due to the fear they
live in.
Regarding the shaykhs and the Ulema, the narrow thinking prevents
them from discussing many issues, either out of ignorance or out of
fear from the authorities. Most of them lack the correct
understanding of the issue at hand, and most of their speeches or
fatwas are emotional, irrelevant, fail to address the situation,
lack comprehensive understanding, and at best address a very narrow
aspect of the situation. Furthermore, the people's ignorance and
their blind attachment to these scholars caused many of them to
become arrogant. They would tell the people not to discuss any issue
with them and would even instruct the people to follow them blindly.
Addressing this problem can occur by increasing the sources of
information to the people and condition the people to listen to more
than one opinion on a single issue, and then to encourage the people
to select an opinion based on their research. This process would not
occur unless the Muslims broaden their horizons. The Muslim must not
have blindness and rigidity but must open his mind and heart to the
people and adhere to the truth, even if it comes from a person that
he dislikes. Allah (swt) says:
''O you who believe! Stand out firmly for
Allah and be just witnesses, and let not the enmity and hatred of
others make you avoid justice. Be just; that is nearer to piety. And
fear Allah. Verily, Allah is well aquatinted with what you do.''
[ 5:8]
Top
Logical Thinking
Logic is an old Greek discipline set by the classical Greek
philosophers. They applied it to any aspect, whether they relate to
things within or beyond the senses. They employed it in discussing
God, His Attributes, and His Essence, in addition to other issues
such as nature and justice. This way of thinking is built upon a
specific philosophical order that leads a person to reach specific
results. The specific format which characterizes logic consists of
two premises: The major premise, which states a general rule or
natural phenomenon, and the minor premise, which could be a specific
idea or issue that the person must think about. Based on the
relationship between the two premises, the logician reaches a
conclusion.
Logicians do not emphasize the soundness or correctness of any of
these premises or logical analysis. Rather, the emphasis is on the
formality. In Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians, by Hallaq,
he states: ''The inherent nature in Syllogism renders it hardly
superior to analogy, because however valid the syllogism may be, it
cannot, by virtue of form alone, lead to a certain conclusion. It is
the subject matter of the argument, not its form, that determines
the truth of the conclusion…A syllogistic mode of reasoning will not
result in a certain conclusion by virtue of form alone.''
Top
The Misapplication of Logic
This syllogism seems outwardly to be a very appealing mental
exercise, which may tempt many people to use it. Although it could
be applied in math, the logical approach cannot function in
jurisprudence, Aqeedah, and politics. A few examples will
illustrate misleading nature of logic if misapplied.
Logic in Jurisprudence One of the greatest disasters to befall the
world of Fiqh was the introduction of logic in understanding
the legal text. A simple example will demonstrate the inability of
reaching the correct conclusion using the logical approach. In life,
people borrow money for many things. Also, the Hajj is an important
thing that Muslims must perform. The logical conclusion is that
Muslims must borrow money for Hajj. This conclusion is false because
Hajj is obligatory only on those who are capable. The one who does
not have money does not need to borrow. The fallacy of this
conclusion came from the fallacy of the second argument, although it
seems correct. The correct argument is that Hajj is an important act
that Muslims must do if they are capable.
Logic in Aqeedah
Although it may seem otherwise, the use of logic in Aqeedah may lead
to erroneous conclusions. For example, one can establish as his
major premise that every creation is not eternal and will end and as
his minor premise that Jannah and the Hell-Fire are created, leading
to the logical conclusion that Jannah and Hell-Fire will end. This
conclusion is wrong because the major premise is wrong. The first
argument applies only to this life, but it cannot be generalized to
include the Hereafter. The Hereafter is a different situation which
is beyond the human sensation and comprehension. Therefore, the
rules of this life cannot be applied to it.
Logic in Political Thinking
One of the most dangerous pitfalls in the political thinking of the
Muslims nowadays results from the use of logic to arrive at
political conclusions. If, for instance, in formulating a political
opinion about the policies of Britain and the US towards the
European Union, one were to establish as his major premise that
America would try to prevent the unity of Europe and as his minor
premise that British policy is connected to the US policy, the
logical conclusion would be that Britain tries to prevent the unity
of Europe. The conclusion is not correct because Britain would be
very enthusiastic in achieving the European unity as long as it is
within its interests. If the British policy seems to oppose the
unity, this opposition is an attempt to steer the unity more towards
its interests or to attempt to influence the US policy in Europe and
not borne out of any lack of desire to achieve the European unity.
The fallacy of the conclusion in this analogy is due to the fallacy
of the second premise. Britain, as a sovereign nation and a former
superpower, would not accept to have its policy linked to the policy
of any other nation, even America. Although both of them belong to
the same Western Camp, a conflict of interest may emerge at times.
These three examples demonstrate that logic does not always lead
people to the correct conclusion. It is worthwhile to mention the
example of Ibn Taymiyyah to illustrate the misleading nature of
using logic out of its context. Ibn Taymiyyah viewed logic as ''the
flesh of a slaughtered camel found on the summit of a mountain; the
flesh is not good enough to warrant climbing the mountain, nor is
the road leading to it easy to follow'' (Hallaq,
Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians).
The reason why logic does not lead to correct conclusions is because
it does not regard the reality nor does it attempt to analyze it.
Rather, it builds a conclusion based on the relationship between two
premises. The correct way of thinking necessitates understanding the
reality and then attempting to find the rule that could be applied
to the reality. Simply establishing certain premises and focusing on
the relationship between the premises and the form of the argument
will not result in any conclusion about the reality. The first
example discusses an Shariah matter, and the correct conclusion
regarding issues related to the Shariah is established by the
evidence from the legal text. The second argument fails to
acknowledge from the very beginning that the entire discussion is
beyond the intellect. And the third example does not build its case
based upon an understanding of the world order and the position of
both the leading nations and the competing nations, which must be
understood before attempting to comprehend the British policy in
Europe.
In addition, the logical way of thinking is wrong because of its use
of generalization. And because the essence of logic is based on a
sequence of premises and pays attention only to the form, it has the
potential to push a person away from the reality. A sound Faqih(jurist)
does not generalize based on apparent similarity. Rather, he exerts
his effort in understanding each issue or situation independently
and thoroughly, and then he searches for the evidence from the
legislative sources and applies the daleel to a specific
issue. It is not enough for him to refer to general ideas such as
interest or the objective of Shariah and then conclude a result
based on this.
And example of the erroneous conclusion that may result from
logical-based generalization is apparent in the following argument.
One can state, according to logic, that Islam does not overburden
the human being, which in itself is a generalization, and as a
second premise, that renting houses is burdensome. Because having
shelter is a basic need for the human being, then the logical
conclusion is that, by necessity, Islam allows buying houses by
taking loans from the bank which involve riba to avoid the burden of
renting. What this argument fails to address is that necessity (Darurah)
is not a general rule that applies to all situations but only to
specific situations mentioned in the Islamic text. Also, the concept
of Islam not overburdening the human being simply states a fact:
Whatever Allah (swt) did reveal as halal and haram lay within the
capability of the human being to apply without excessive burden.
However, the notion of burden nowadays is used through logic to
justify making halal what Islam made haram.
Such a logical thinking process is very common among Muslims,
particularly in jurisprudence. As a result, many people cite
''Logical justifications for Shariah rules'' such as claiming that
fasting purifies the brain from its metabolic wastes, or that
prayer helps discharge the electric charge
from the head. Many others would make such claims that Islam made
the testimony of the woman less than that of the man in certain
issues because of her lack of understanding and conclude that such a
rule is no longer valid on the premise that women today are
educated. And yet others would link the fasting to the sighting of
the moon on the premise that Muslims were illiterate, concluding as
a result that the use of calculations are allowed in determining the
beginning and end of Ramadan on the premise that Muslims are no
longer illiterate. Furthermore, many jurists generalize the concept
of necessity (Darurah) and apply it to all situations,
whereas Islam applied necessity(Darurah)
only in specific situations. All of these erroneous arguments result
from the use of logical thinking taken out of context.
In order to address this way of thinking, Muslims must be trained to
understand the situation as it is rather than through this Sophistic
approach. The Muslims must realize that the processes involved in
establishing the Aqeedah, understanding the legal text, and
formulating political opinions are unique. And they must restrict
the application of logic to such areas as mathematics.
Top
Justification Based Thinking
The correct way of thinking requires from any person to start
searching any issue by studying the situation correctly and then
linking it with previous information in order to reach a conclusion.
For Sharii issues, the research must be constructed upon
valid Sharii evidences. For all other issues, the appropriate
evidence is required to substantiate the research. In either case,
the starting point of any research is to study the situation, with
the conclusion as the final destination.
However, due to the superficial thinking, the situation is reversed
among Muslims. They begin with a pre-set conclusion, and the entire
research is tailored to justify the conclusion that was already
decided upon. This type of thinking is a twisted approach which
defeats the entire purpose of thinking and cancels the mission of
the thinker.
Both the superficial thinking as well as the imitation naturally
result in this method of thinking because the one who utilizes it
usually adopts the result or conclusion either based on imitation,
wishful thinking, or the need to blend with the crowd. One of the
manifestations of this thinking is justifying the actions and
decisions of the rulers, officials, shaykhs, scholars, and prominent
thinkers. The entire research begins with the pre-determined
conclusion that any decision or act made by such individuals is
correct by default. Afterwards, the thinking process is restricted
to finding reasons and explanations to justify these decisions or
actions.
Another manifestation of this thinking is justifying the human
error. Many people will make a mistake and then realize it. But
instead of admitting their mistake, they continue to justify it
either out of stubbornness, fear of losing credibility in the eyes
of the people, or out of personal interest.
This type of thinking is very common among Muslims nowadays. Most of
their thinking, whether in politics, jurisprudence, Aqeedah, or
science, amounts to nothing more than justifying pre-set results
made by the shaykhs, political leaders, and intellectuals. The
masses cling onto these individuals and try to imitate them blindly.
As a result, the thinkers and intellectuals in the Ummah are very
little in number.
The correct research requires setting aside any pre-set results or
conclusions. However, it does not require abandoning previous
information or the point of view of life because these components
are essential to the thinking process. The previous information must
be taken if it is correct because the thinking process cannot
materialize without it. And the point of view cannot be put aside
because it shapes the thinking of the person. And in the case of
Muslims, Islam came to shape their thinking.
The thinking of the Ummah must rid itself of this obstacle to the
correct thinking. Blind following, imitation, superficial thinking
are shackles that need to be disposed of. Also, we need to restore
the trust of the individuals in themselves and in their capabilities
to do their own independent research. Each individual must realize
that he is accountable only for his decisions, and it is not correct
to choose these shaykhs, leaders, and thinkers as ''gods'' by
following them blindly and justifying their opinions and decisions.
Allah (swt) mentions in the Qur'an that some of the sinners will try
to claim that their mistakes were the result of the mistakes of
their leaders, but this will not be accepted from them:
''And they will say: 'Our Lord! Verily, we
obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they misled us from the
(Right) Way.''' [ 33:67]
This ayah condemns the concept of justifying the mistakes of others.
Regarding justifying personal mistakes, Islam considers this
justification as a crime that can be much more severe than the
original mistake. Therefore, it is mandatory upon Muslims to admit
their mistakes without justifying them. The Prophet (saaw) said, ''Every
son of Adam makes mistakes, and the best wrongdoers are the ones who
repent.'' We must realize that it is mandatory to see
things as they are and not as we like them to be.
Top
The Impact of Neglecting the Islamic Method of Thinking
The different approaches and methods mentioned all characterize the
thinking of Muslims today. While they may not exist in each and
every Muslim, all of these characteristics exist in the Ummah at
different levels. These incorrect approaches could be one of many
reasons that led to the intellectual decline in addition to being a
product of the intellectual decline. Thus, it is not surprising to
see the state of the Ummah today and its intellectual apathy. The
Ummah has devolved to such a level that the total amount of
literature published in Israel exceeds the amount that is published
in all the Arab countries combined. And the quality of most of what
is published in the Arab world amounts to no more than copying the
Western culture in arts, literature, politics, economy, and other
disciplines. The same applies to the amount of reading. The
percentage of those who read in the Muslim countries is very little
compared to other nations. And those who do read restrict their
reading to the curriculum or popular newspapers and magazines, or to
books that present issues in an emotional way.
This state of affairs has culminated in the absence of Islamic
thinking in the Ummah. While some individuals may possess correct
Islamic thinking, the Ummah as an entity lacks this method of
thinking, the absence of which has resulted in two outcomes:
Absence of the Public Awareness
Any progressing nation which adopts its ideology in an intellectual
way will form a public awareness, which means that the public's
outlook towards the major issues and problems will be unified. This
unified public awareness materializes when the point of view towards
man, life, and the universe, is consistent and is built upon a
fundamental conviction that is arrived at intellectually. Without
such public awareness or a unified outlook toward life, the Ummah
will lose its intellectual unity, and, as a result, will come under
the influence of many conflicting thoughts and emotions. Even when
presented with one case or issue, its perception will vary, and the
efforts to deal with this case will be scattered. Thus, what any
group may build or achieve may be destroyed by the function of
another group. At the end, animosity will spread, which will
dissolve any attempt to establish a unified entity. Allah (swt)
warned the Muslims about such a dispute when He said:
''And obey Allah and His Messenger, and do
not dispute (with one another) lest you lose courage and your
strength departs, and be patient. Surely, Allah is with those who
are patient.'' [ 8:46]
Furthermore, Allah (swt) states that the unity of the Fikr
that unifies the hearts is one of the greatest favours that Allah
gave to the Muslims:
''And hold fast, all of you together, to the
Rope of Allah (the Qur'an) and be not divided among yourselves. And
remember Allah's Favour on you, for you were enemies to one another,
but He joined your hearts together so that, by His Grace, you became
brethren (in Islam), and you were on the brink of a pit of fire, and
He saved you from it.'' [ 3:103]
However, Muslims lost their public awareness and lost their unified
outlook and became controlled by different outlooks. This is because
of the lack of the Islamic way of thinking and because of the
failure to adopt Islam in its correct way, as well as because of the
efforts of the Colonialists and their tools in propagating the
Western culture. Nowadays, there are Capitalist Muslims who call,
intentionally or unintentionally, for the separation of the Deen
from the public life. Similarly, there exist Communist Muslims,
Nationalist Muslims, Socialist Muslims, Muslims who are concerned
solely about their interests, Pragmatic Muslims, Muslims who justify
the acts of the rulers, and careless Muslims, each one having a
distinct point of view. If they meet to discuss any issue, they will
immediately differ with each other, and the discussion will either
escalate to a level where each side will hurl insults at one another
or label each other with derogatory names and depart with animosity
towards each other. As a result, societies in the Muslim world live
in different camps, each one of them having their own distinct
outlook or point of view. And each camp isolates itself from the
others, meeting only to acquire a specific interest or as a
formality or to clash with one another.
The intellectual division is the worst disaster that struck the
Ummah. Muslims today approach any issue, even critical or clear-cut
issues that leave no room for divergent understandings, from a
distinct angle according to each individual's unique point of view.
For example, the issue of unity, and the specific steps towards this
objective, are clear-cut and well defined. Yet the multitude of
scattered opinions and divergent understandings regarding this issue
reflects the fractured public opinion of the Ummah. Some would
approach this issue carelessly or, out of lack of concern or apathy,
would not even consider it an issue. Others would approach the issue
with great enthusiasm, but carefully scrutinizing their enthusiasm
will reveal that it is based purely on slogans without any
intellectual basis. One will find the Social Nationalists calling
for unity based on Socialism, and the Secular Nationalists calling
for unity based on the separation of the Deen from the public
life. Also, one will see the Islamist Nationalist calling for each
country to be united based on Islam but separated from the other
countries, claiming that each country has its own unique
circumstances. And the Ultranationalist would reject the unity
outright because he views it as a threat to the sovereignty of his
own homeland. And there are people who call for unity for each
region, such as North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, Subcontinent,
and the Turkish Regions. Thus, the Muslims cannot even agree as to
the scope of unity, let alone what steps to take towards achieving
it.
Even regarding the nature of unity itself, there are differences.
Some define unity as cooperation between the different governments
on some issues, such as cancelling the visas or lifting customs
dues. Some would call to establish a league among the people while
maintaining the political entities as they are. Others would call
for a confederation or a federation, and still others would call for
a total unity. Some would call for some sort of economic integration
centred around establishing common markets, while others would call
for unity only in the foreign policy through political organizations
such as the Arab League. Ironically each camp would speak about
unity, but with each other, they will immediately disperse and
achieve nothing.
All of these differences exist regarding the objective of unity
alone. Regarding the methodology, the differences are much worse.
The Pragmatists will leave the method to the situation to determine.
The Gradualists would call for the states to agree on the minimum
level of unity as a first step while working for the next stage. One
will see the officials who want the rulers to decide upon the
methodology as well as revolutionaries who want to reach the unity
based on mass revolution. And some will call for annexation, even if
done by force. These differences exist in each camp that call for
the unity. In the Nationalist camp alone, there exist
revolutionaries, gradualists, pragmatists, and others.
All of these differences exist regarding the concept of unity in the
general sense. Examining the details will reveal even further
differences. What exasperates the problem are the existence of some
who are not serious in their discussion and discuss simply to
discharge their emotions. And in addition to such individuals, there
exist others who are connected to the Imperialists, either directly
by coordinating with them or indirectly by acting in a manner that
serves their agenda.The former would deliberately collaborate with
the Imperialists in working against any notion of correct unity,
while the latter would unknowingly draw the Ummah into repeated
conflicts and events that would serve the agenda of others at the
expense of the Ummah's resources.
Such a situation reflects the hadith in which the Prophet (saaw)
described the situation of the Muslims nowadays: ''At that day, you
will be great in number, but you will be like the foam.'' In spite of
their tremendous number and resources, the Muslim Ummah has no value
without any unified public awareness or unified outlook towards
life. Some would claim that the differences that exist is a natural
and healthy phenomenon. They will go further by claiming that the
West is progressing despite the differences that exist in their
pluralistic societies. This argument fails to distinguish between
differences in the way of thinking, which will lead to dismantling
the public awareness and spell disaster for any nation including the
West, and the differences resulting from understanding certain
issues while maintaining the unity of the public awareness, which is
natural.
The West already solved the problem of building a specific frame of
thinking after decades of struggle in Europe. The separation of
State and Church, and the subsequent adoption of Capitalism, caused
the West to unify the public awareness along a common outlook
towards life. By doing so, a distinct way of thinking emerged among
the people, and the entire society was reorganized based upon this
focal point. Even the feelings and attitudes of the people existed
within this frame. Political parties, different associations such as
think tanks and labour unions, various
individuals such as academics, journalists, intellectuals, jurists,
and even some clergy, all became just different outlets of
expressing this common unified outlook. The nature of life under
Capitalism facilitated the creation of these differences of opinion
within a common ideological framework.
Some would think that the existing currents in the West conflict
with one another and even with this common framework. However, the
Socialist or Nationalist movements that call for integration of
their people into the European Union, religious movements who
espouse ''Christian values,'' and extreme leftist and rightists, do
not conflict with this Capitalist framework because all of these
movements and currents work within the existing framework. For
example, the Communist parties in many European nations call for
change through public votes and not through the class struggle as
laid down by the Communist ideology. Furthermore, such parties
establish coalitions and fronts with other movements like any other
pragmatic movement would. The same applies to all other movements
and parties in the West. Therefore, the West is not progressing
because of the differences but rather because of the unity in their
way of thinking which refers to a specific point of view.
Contrary to the West, the Muslims did not yet settle any critical
intellectual issue, and they have not yet conclude the intellectual
struggle. To this day, Muslims as an Ummah have yet to take a stand
towards issues such as: The revival and how to achieve it;
technological advancement and how to approach it, and whether it
occurs through transferring technology or through other means; the
unity and how to build it; and the priorities of the Ummah and where
to start. All of these issues remain unsettled and dangling before
the Muslims waiting for someone to address them. Although some
movements may have resolved such issues, the Ummah as an entity has
not. It must be noted that having different groups that reach
distinct conclusions in these issues while keeping their findings
and research to themselves and banning the members of the group from
communicating with other groups for fear of losing their members, is
not enough. In fact, this phenomenon will not succeed in unifying
the public awareness and actually exasperates the already-existing
division.
As a result of this intellectual division in the very point of view
of life, the platform exists for any issue, even small issues, to
result in multitudes of opinions and approaches if discussed among
Muslims. For example, even the issue of removing a small munkar
such as a bar will result in a vast array of diverging opinions that
sometimes will conflict one another. The regimes take advantage of
this situation and even work to maintain it by emphasizing this type
of difference and market it as a sign of openness and progress. They
would present case after case to the Ummah, one after another, to
create more confusion and intensify the differences. To facilitate
this process, the media keeps presenting issues to the public either
without solutions or, at best, with conflicting solutions. And when
the people are on the verge of settling one issue by arriving at a
specific understanding towards it, the regimes present a new issue
to keep the masses busy and, as a result, prevent the Ummah from
ever settling any issue intellectually. At the end, the masses will
keep thinking that they are in need of this ruler to help them and
to maintain the integrity of the country, regardless of his record
of atrocities and crimes against the people.
Therefore, the Muslims must work to build the public awareness based
on Islam by adopting Islam in the correct manner as a distinct way
of thinking and establishing the Islamic Aqeedah as the
intellectual reference point. This is the most important challenge
facing Muslims nowadays because unifying the public awareness will
maintain the existence of the correct way of thinking. Once the
intellectual unity is achieved, the thoughts, the agenda, and the
reference point for the Ummah will unite, and the general frame
within which the Muslims can discuss issues with focus and clarity
will materialize. Within this frame, having different opinions in
detailed issues is a healthy phenomenon that will contribute to the
intellectual growth and dynamism of the Ummah. As a result, the path
for the revival will be clear, and the Ummah will proceed towards it
utilizing its resources in an effective and coordinated manner.
Simply calling the people to ''Get united,'' or to ''Coordinate your
efforts,'' or to ''Help each other in whatever you agree upon,'' will
not suffice. Such a unity can never materialize unless the thinking
of the Ummah is united.
The Western Colonial powers and their tools realize the danger of
those who are working to establish the public awareness of the Ummah,
and they consider them more of a danger than anything else. For this
reason, many attempts are made to prevent the establishment of a
unified public awareness based on Islam. These efforts include:
Harassing those who work for such an intellectual unity by
intimidation, torture, and deprivation of basic rights; isolating
such individuals from the Ummah by barring them from using any means
of mass communication such as television; trying to divert them; and
using some tools to attack them and to distort their image. On the
other hand, any call that magnifies the division and erects barriers
between the Ummah and a unified public awareness will be encouraged.
As a result, any individual that calls for remaining general and
avoiding specific or deep discussion regarding the issues, not
looking at things comprehensively, or not discussing any issues at
all, nor avoiding any opinion different than what the individual
carries, are given the spotlight to present their ideas. Such
individuals are not only committing a crime against the Ummah but
against themselves as well.
Top
|
