"I would say today, we can integrate all religions and races except Islam," he said in "Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going," a new book containing his typically frank views on the city-state and its future.
I find such comments hardly surprising from our controversial Minister Mentor. If we are careful, critical readers we would observe a sort of pattern in what and how our politicians are saying about our community; that every social ill where our community would 'excel' in is framed as a Malay issue and that Malays are 'less integrating' as opposed to other races by virtue of their faith. This brief article aims to expound on the second issue; is it true that Malays are less integrating as opposed to other races by virtue of their faith?
Exploring the meaning of national integration
We define national integration as a synthesis of two terms, ‘national’ and ‘integration’. The word ‘national’ is derived from the word ‘nation’ which means a large group of people inhabiting a place deemed to be their territory, their common land (Vyas, 1993). The word ‘integration’ on the other hand, means a unification of varying perceptions from different people. Hence, the term ‘National Integration’ means ‘a process as well as a goal by which all the people inhabiting in a particular territory irrespective of their religious, ethnic and linguistic differences, on the basis of certain shared traditions, experiences, common history and values strive to live together forever with honour and dignity” (Vyas, 1993).
In a nutshell, national integration is both a process and goal where different communities live together harmoniously by forging a common identity that is shared by all; emphasizing the commonalities that we share. Keyword to note here is share, and there are many things that Muslims share with non-Muslim communities; the love for justice, for peace, for security, for prosperity etc. There are also many things that Muslims don't share with non-Muslim communities; beliefs, worldviews, values, laws etc. and there are many things that Buddhists don't share with Hindus too; they are all different, separate and distinct communities.
To say that Islam cannot integrate with other races and religions is a straw man argument because indefinitely we share many things in common with others to enable us to 'live together forever with honor and dignity' despite our differences in other matters. This is by virtue of the meaning of integration; to say that we are integrating means to relate with different entities. It does not make any sense to integrate the same entities; there must be a difference between one another, and these differences must be maintained and observed to preserve the meaning of the word 'integration', or else we cannot consider it to be integration. We can call this process of something else, probably 'imposing a monolithic way of life', but we cannot call it integration. In fact, the differences and diversity in religious rituals, customs and administration of laws of different ethnic and religious groups should be tolerated as long as they do not “promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony” (Penal Code, 2010).
We encounter another different term - tolerance. And this word is also rooted to differences between communities as well. When we say community A tolerates community B, we mean that this two communities are distinct and separate. If it is the same community then it does not make any sense to use the word 'tolerate'.
In summary, when one says that integration is not possible, by virtue of the meaning of the word, it either means that there is no commonalities shared between the communities or that despite the commonalities shared, there is no way for them to live in honor and dignity with each other. Yet in the context of the Singapore Muslim community, this statement cannot stand.
So what exactly does our MM Lee mean when he speaks of 'national integration'? Obviously 'national integration' in MM Lee's terms do not mean what I have expounded above.
Secular, Secularism and Secularization
Al-Attas defines secularization as the "deliverance of man first from religious and then metaphysical control; as the loosing of the world dispelling of all closed world views, the breaking of all supernatural myths and sacred symbols." Therefore secularization and its ideology, secular-ism,is not just anti-Islam, it is also anti-religion since all religions are by nature closed worldviews, whether Hindu, Buddhist or Christian.
However, what is meant as the secular state of Singapore is not anti-religion since it is clearly expressed in the Constitution the laissez faire attitude of the state towards religion:
(1) Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and to propagate it.
(2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.
(3) Every religious group has the right
(a) to manage its own religious affairs;
(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and
(c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.
(4) This article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality. (Article 15 Singapore Constitution)
However, it seems that this is not what is meant by MM Lee:
"I think the Muslims socially do not cause any trouble, but they are distinct and separate," Lee added, calling on the community to "be less strict on Islamic observances."
What does he mean by 'less strict'? This can be clarified in other statements:
"The generation that worked with me - Othman Wok, Rahim Ishak - that was before the wave came sweeping back, sweeing them... We drank beer... we ate together."
"There are nearly 230 million Muslims in Southeast Asia. Nearly all were tolerant and easy to live with. The majority of the 200 million Muslims were 'abangans', Muslims who had fused Islam with Buddhism, Hinduism and other beliefs. They were not the intense and strict Muslim of the Arabs in the Middle East."
So this vision of Singaporean Muslims being 'abangans' is what he meant in his call for Muslims "to be less strict on Islamic observances." And this goes very well in line with the secularization process discussed earlier that is to be imposed on Muslims, to create this new 'abangans' that would fit snugly in his vision of a monolithic Singaporean community that is secular in the anti-religion sense.
And this is not integration.
MM Lee and Islam
In a sense, MM Lee is trying to teach us Muslims how to practise Islam properly. Is he in a position to do so?
Those statements blurted out rather insensitively does reflect the measure of Islamophobia he has in his mind; the assumption that Islam is problematic and that the only way for 'integration' is to secularize them. Additionally, it also reflects the rather superficial understanding of Islam that he has at hand that is probably dominated not by engaging in fruitful discourse but through the demonizing media. This is very well demonstrated in his claims that:
"I came to this conclusion because I live among Muslims.."
as if to imply that his understanding of Islam through living among Muslims is sufficiently enough to substantiate his claims that Islam cannot be 'integrated'. This, my dear friends, is a fallacy. Because even when I live among my Christian, Hindu and Buddhist friends for years, I do not claim that I understand them fully, nor impose on them on how they should practise their faith.
Is Islam not 'integrating'? Of course if 'integration' is meant by the imposing of an anti-religion monolithic way of life, then Islam cannot be integrated with such things, because Islam has its own truth claim as other religions also do. If not 'integrating' means the 5 minutes off work time to perform the obligatory prayers, the refusal for our Muslimah to shake hands with a non-mahram, the observance of modest dress codes, the demand for halal food for example, then this is a trivial argument because it does not interfere with anything that is important to a non-Muslim nor impede religious harmony.
The Islamic civilization that lasted for more than 1000 years was a testament to religious tolerance and harmony; of what integration really means, not in the imposing of an anti-religion monolithic way of life sense. In fact, I can claim in the absolutist sense backed by historical evidence that it was Muslims who taught non-Muslims how to live side by side each other in peace and harmony. MM Lee seems to have forgotten that if it were not for our Malay ancestors who allowed his migrant ancestors from China to come and reside here in peace with us, he would not have told this story. The reason why there are Chinese and Indians living here in the Malay archipelago is that we Malays are open to integration. Do we see Malays living in China and India? Fact is, we don't. Ironically, the Chinese are well known for their xenophobia in the past, and this is substantiated by historical evidence too.
Are Muslims difficult to integrate?
MM Lee blames the Islamic resurgence for making Muslims less 'integrating':
"I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came and if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier integration -- friends, intermarriages and so on..." he stated.
"But the nature of Islam in Southeast Asia has been changing over the last 30 years. First and foremost, after the price of oil quadrupled in 1973, Saudi Arabia had generously financed the “Dakwa” (missionary) movement by building mosques and religious schools (madrasahs) and paying for preachers (ulamas) throughout the world, spreading the teachings and practices of its austere Wahabi version of Islam. Next, the overthrow of the Shah in Iran in 1979, in a revolution led by Islamic clerics, had made a profound impression on Muslim minds of the power of Islam. Finally, the participation of large numbers of Southeast Asian Muslims in the jihad in Afghanistan during the 1980s and the 1990s has radicalised significant numbers of the Southeast Asian Muslims."
He adds that:
In keeping with a world-wide trend, over the last three decades many Muslims in Singapore and the region are becoming stricter in their dress, diet, religious observances, and even social interaction, especially with non-Muslims. Increasingly Muslim women will not shake hands with men. The generation of convivial and easy-to-get-along-with Muslim leaders in the region has given way to successors who observe a stricter Islamic code of conduct. My original concern was over the growing separateness of our Muslim community, as Singaporean Muslims tended to congregate for their social and extra-mural activities in their mosques, instead of in multi-racial community clubs.
Of course there is some truth in what he is saying with regards to the Islamic resurgence phenomenon, but strangely he used trivial examples to substantiate what he meant by 'non-integrating'. Does the observance of strict dress codes impede national integration? Personally I think such fallacious arguments are meant for younger children, because we are not asking him to observe strict dress codes and live like a proper Muslim. MM Lee expects our Muslim elderly to perform line-dance in community centres as opposed to thinking about their impending death and the Hereafter which is obligatory to the religion, and this sort of argument, this imposing attitude we cannot accept.
Additionally, increasing religious consciousness is a global phenomenon, not just for Muslims. In my campus I think the Christian groups and fellowships are more active than the Muslim Society; they congregate in their bible reading circles and churches. But do we say they are not 'integrating'? Are we seeing double standards here?
Ultimately I believe such arguments stem from the misconception that there are different types of Islam; abangan, strict-Middle-East etc. possibly dominated by an Orientalist study of Islam. Of course we have different schools of thought in metaphysics, in jurisprudence etc. but none of these school of thoughts promote an attitude that is "less strict on Islamic observances". If this 'less strict' attitude is meant as secular in the anti-religion worldly sense then this is contrary to Islam unanimously agreed upon by all schools of thought. This is because religion, as defined by Al-Attas is the "sincere and total submission to God's Will, and this is enacted willingly as absolute obedience to the Law revealed by Him."
Final Notes
So what is national integration? As discussed earlier, national integration must involve separate, distinct communities. National integration must involve commonalities with the goal of living in honor, dignity and harmony.
On the other hand, national integration is not the imposing of an anti-religion monolithic worldly way of life such that it demands a compromise of religious ideals and principles.
National integration is all about tolerance, respect and understanding, and this demands a sincere understanding of the differences between the different communities and living and co-existing with these differences as long as they do not contradict the national goal of living in honor, dignity and harmony.
As a Malay Muslim,despite having more Malay Muslim friends than non-Muslim ones, which is natural, I can dare say that such accusations that I am not integrating enough is unfounded. I live harmoniously beside 3 Chinese neighbours whom my family shares food with, I am the only Malay guy in my undergraduate course in Bioengineering and I participate in some of the block parties organized by the RC in my vicinity. If I had lived an isolated life I clearly would not survive.
And I love this country, God bless Singapura!
Wallahu 'Alam
References:
"Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going" by Lee Kuan Yew
"Islam and Secularism" by Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas
"Keynote address: Cesifo forum 2002" by Lee Kuan Yew
Penal Code
Singapore Constitution
"National Integration and the Law: Burning Issues and Challenges" by Vyas
Monday, January 24, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Merenung Disebalik Ma'na Korban
Sempena bulan Zulhijjah yang penuh barakah ini saya telah memilih “Ma’na Korban” sebagai tajuk tazkirah yang ingin saya sampaikan kepada sahabat-sahabat yang saya hormati, semoga kita semua dapat meraih manfaat daripada peringatan yang ringkas ini.
Dalam merenung ma’na disebalik istilah ‘korban’, izinkan saya merujuk kepada Kamus Dewan yang mempunyai autoritinya tersendiri dalam merungkai maksud disebalik istilah-istilah dalam Bahasa Melayu. Antara ma’na yang dicatatkan ialah amalan menghampirkan diri kepada Allah dengan menyembelih binatang ternakan dan mengagihkan sebahagian daripada daging itu kepada fakir miskin, pemberian sebagai tanda kebaktian, dan yang paling menarik perhatian saya di sini ialah ma’na korban sebagai seseorang yang menanggung penderitaan akibat sesuatu perbuatan. Kalau ditinjau lagi ma’na yang terakhir ini kita dapat menggambarkan pandangan alam Melayu yang tidak melihat sesuatu penderitaan ataupun kesusahan sebagai suatu kecelakaan meskipun ia melibatkan nyawa sekalipun sebagaimana yang digunakan dalam istilah korban jiwa. Bahkan kalau dikaji dengan cara menghubungkaitkan ma’na yang terakhir tadi dengan ma’na-ma’na yang awalnya,kita dapati betapa serasinya pandangan alam Melayu dengan ajaran Islam tentang konsep taqdir dan pemahaman orang Melayu mengenai kesusahan, dimana kesusahan itu pada pengamatan saya dilihat sebagai sesuatu amalan yang menghampirkan orang yang ditimpa kesusahan itu kepada Allah, sebagai tanda kebaktian dan ketaatan kita kepada Allah S.W.T.
Dengan gambaran yang lebih jelas ini mengenai ta’rif ‘korban’, kita dapati hubungan yang erat antara sang Pencipta dan hamba-Nya, dimana para hamba akan sentiasa diuji dengan pelbagai kesusahan agar dapat diperlihatkan kadar keimanannya kepada Allah S.W.T, yakni sejauh manakah si hamba itu mampu berkorban? Sudah sedia maklum bahawa ramai di antara kita sudahpun dididik mengenai kisah Nabi Ibrahim A.S yang sanggup mengorbankan anaknya Nabi Ismail A.S demi cintanya dan pengabdiannya kepada Allah. Justeru kisah pengorbanan yang klasik ini diabadikan di dalam Al-Qur’an dan juga di dalam Doa Iftitah yang kita ucapkan dalam solat kita sempena doa Nabi Ibrahim:
“Sesungguhnya solatku, dan ibadahku, hidupku, dan matiku, hanya untuk-Mu Ya Rabbi!”
Persoalan yang menghantui fikiran saya: Sanggupkah saya? Apakah pengorbanan yang saya sanggup lakukan demi Allah?
Barangkali ma’na ‘korban’ itu dapat dijelaskan lagi dengan cerita-cerita yang termaktub dalam kitab Kasyful Mahjub karangan Ulama’ Tasawwuf yang tidak asing lagi, Syed Ali bin Uthman Al-Hujweri. Istilah Arabnya disebutkan sebagai ‘ithar, dan pertama sekali yang disebutkannya ialah ayat Qur’an dari Surah Al-Hasyr ayat ke-9 yang bermaksud:
“ Dan orang-orang yang telah menempati kota Madinah (Ansar) dan telah beriman sebelum mereka (Muhajirin), mereka mencintai orang yang berhijrah kepada mereka. Dan mereka tiada menaruh keinginan dalam hati mereka terhadap apa-apa yang diberikan kepada mereka (Muhajirin); dan mereka mengutamakan (orang-orang Muhajirin) atas diri mereka sendiri. Sekalipun mereka memerlukan (apa yang diberikan itu).
Dan siapa yang dipelihara dari kekikiran dirinya, mereka itulah orang-orang yang beruntung.”
Orang Ansar yang dimuliakan Allah ini dimaksudkan Al-Hujweri sebagai Ashabus-Suffah, semoga kita anggota Suffah dapat memahami dan mengamalkan pengorbanan mereka demi sahabat-sahabat yang mereka cintai dan demi menegakkan agama Islam. Di tempat yang lain juga disebutkan tentang kisah pengorbanan Saidina Ali yang sanggup tidur di atas katil Rasulullah semasa Rasulullah melakukan hijrah, dan pengorbanan Abdullah Ibnu Umar yang tersangat ingin makan ikan, lalu terserempak dengan seorang pengemis. Lalu diberikan ikan itu kepada si pengemis, seraya mengungkapkan hadith Rasulullah S.A.W yang berbunyi:
“Sesiapa yang mempunyai keinginan untuk sesuatu lalu ditundukkan keinginan itu demi orang lain, maka dia akan mendapat pengampunan Allah.”
Satu lagi kisah yang dimuatkan juga ialah kisah tiga orang askar yang tercedera di Perang Uhud, dimana apabila seorang daripada mereka didatangi seorang wanita yang ditugaskan memberi air, disuruh wanita itu berikan air itu kepada sahabatnya yang lain, lalu wanita ini bergegas kepada sahabat yang kedua ini. Sahabat ini juga menyuruh wanita itu memberikan air kepada sahabat yang ketiga, justeru wanita ini terus bergegas untuk memberikan air kepada sahabat yang ketiga ini. Sampainya wanita ini kepada sahabat yang ketiga, sahabat ini menyuruh wanita itu untuk memberikan air kepada sahabat yang pertama. Sampainya wanita itu kepada sahabat yang pertama, didapatinya bahawa sahabat yang pertama ini telah syahid. Lalu beliau bergegas kepada sahabat yang kedua,dan didapati bahawa sahabat ini juga turut syahid. Akhir sekali wanita ini bergegas kepada sahabat yang ketiga dan didapatinya bahawa beliau juga turut syahid. Betapa besarnya pengorbanan sahabat-sahabat ini demi cinta mereka terhadap satu sama lain!
Jelaslah bahawa kita ini begitu kerdil untuk melakukan pengorbanan yang begitu besar dilakukan oleh para sahabat Rasulullah. Namun sebagaimana yang dinyatakan di dalam Al-Quran, Allah tiada membebankan seseorang itu diluar kemampuannya. Sebagai seorang pelajar, apakah pengorbanan yang kita dapat lakukan?
Pada peringkat usia ini sudah tentu pengorbanan kita lebih khusus kepada bidang keilmuan. Saya anjurkan kepada diri saya dan sahabat-sahabat untuk mengorbankan waktu dan tenaga yang ada untuk mencari ilmu yang bermanfaat, baik ilmu pengetahuan maupun ilmu pengenalan yakni ma’rifah. Contohilah semangat dan budaya ilmu yang dimiliki sarjana-sarjana silam kita. Sebagai contoh, Ibnu Sina sanggup membaca kitab Aristotle beratus-ratus kali tanpa jemu hanya untuk memahaminya. Al-Jahiz itu menulis begitu banyak kitab sehingga dikatakan bahawa beliau telah menulis kitab yang menyentuh kesemua bidang ilmu yang terdapat pada masanya, dan karangannya yang termasyhur ialah Kitab Al-Hayawan yang menjadi buku rujukan tentang haiwan dan ekologi untuk beratus-ratus tahun. Pelajarilah bahasa asing, terutama sekali bahasa Arab, agar dapat memahami ilmu-ilmu tamadun mereka. Mungkin kalau saudara renungkan hadith Rasulullah yang berbunyi: “Belajarlah hingga ke negeri Cina”, saudara akan dapati bahawa kalau ingin mendalami ilmu tamadun Cina ini haruslah terlebih dahulu melakukan pelbagai persiapan, termasuklah dari segi kewangan dan penguasaan bahasa.
Akhir kata, semoga kita sentiasa aktif dalam merenungkan ma’na-ma’na, baik dalam kitab Al-Qur’an maupun Al-Qur’an yang lebih besar yakni alam semesta ciptaan Allah ini. Amin.
Wallahu ‘Alam
Dalam merenung ma’na disebalik istilah ‘korban’, izinkan saya merujuk kepada Kamus Dewan yang mempunyai autoritinya tersendiri dalam merungkai maksud disebalik istilah-istilah dalam Bahasa Melayu. Antara ma’na yang dicatatkan ialah amalan menghampirkan diri kepada Allah dengan menyembelih binatang ternakan dan mengagihkan sebahagian daripada daging itu kepada fakir miskin, pemberian sebagai tanda kebaktian, dan yang paling menarik perhatian saya di sini ialah ma’na korban sebagai seseorang yang menanggung penderitaan akibat sesuatu perbuatan. Kalau ditinjau lagi ma’na yang terakhir ini kita dapat menggambarkan pandangan alam Melayu yang tidak melihat sesuatu penderitaan ataupun kesusahan sebagai suatu kecelakaan meskipun ia melibatkan nyawa sekalipun sebagaimana yang digunakan dalam istilah korban jiwa. Bahkan kalau dikaji dengan cara menghubungkaitkan ma’na yang terakhir tadi dengan ma’na-ma’na yang awalnya,kita dapati betapa serasinya pandangan alam Melayu dengan ajaran Islam tentang konsep taqdir dan pemahaman orang Melayu mengenai kesusahan, dimana kesusahan itu pada pengamatan saya dilihat sebagai sesuatu amalan yang menghampirkan orang yang ditimpa kesusahan itu kepada Allah, sebagai tanda kebaktian dan ketaatan kita kepada Allah S.W.T.
Dengan gambaran yang lebih jelas ini mengenai ta’rif ‘korban’, kita dapati hubungan yang erat antara sang Pencipta dan hamba-Nya, dimana para hamba akan sentiasa diuji dengan pelbagai kesusahan agar dapat diperlihatkan kadar keimanannya kepada Allah S.W.T, yakni sejauh manakah si hamba itu mampu berkorban? Sudah sedia maklum bahawa ramai di antara kita sudahpun dididik mengenai kisah Nabi Ibrahim A.S yang sanggup mengorbankan anaknya Nabi Ismail A.S demi cintanya dan pengabdiannya kepada Allah. Justeru kisah pengorbanan yang klasik ini diabadikan di dalam Al-Qur’an dan juga di dalam Doa Iftitah yang kita ucapkan dalam solat kita sempena doa Nabi Ibrahim:
“Sesungguhnya solatku, dan ibadahku, hidupku, dan matiku, hanya untuk-Mu Ya Rabbi!”
Persoalan yang menghantui fikiran saya: Sanggupkah saya? Apakah pengorbanan yang saya sanggup lakukan demi Allah?
Barangkali ma’na ‘korban’ itu dapat dijelaskan lagi dengan cerita-cerita yang termaktub dalam kitab Kasyful Mahjub karangan Ulama’ Tasawwuf yang tidak asing lagi, Syed Ali bin Uthman Al-Hujweri. Istilah Arabnya disebutkan sebagai ‘ithar, dan pertama sekali yang disebutkannya ialah ayat Qur’an dari Surah Al-Hasyr ayat ke-9 yang bermaksud:
“ Dan orang-orang yang telah menempati kota Madinah (Ansar) dan telah beriman sebelum mereka (Muhajirin), mereka mencintai orang yang berhijrah kepada mereka. Dan mereka tiada menaruh keinginan dalam hati mereka terhadap apa-apa yang diberikan kepada mereka (Muhajirin); dan mereka mengutamakan (orang-orang Muhajirin) atas diri mereka sendiri. Sekalipun mereka memerlukan (apa yang diberikan itu).
Dan siapa yang dipelihara dari kekikiran dirinya, mereka itulah orang-orang yang beruntung.”
Orang Ansar yang dimuliakan Allah ini dimaksudkan Al-Hujweri sebagai Ashabus-Suffah, semoga kita anggota Suffah dapat memahami dan mengamalkan pengorbanan mereka demi sahabat-sahabat yang mereka cintai dan demi menegakkan agama Islam. Di tempat yang lain juga disebutkan tentang kisah pengorbanan Saidina Ali yang sanggup tidur di atas katil Rasulullah semasa Rasulullah melakukan hijrah, dan pengorbanan Abdullah Ibnu Umar yang tersangat ingin makan ikan, lalu terserempak dengan seorang pengemis. Lalu diberikan ikan itu kepada si pengemis, seraya mengungkapkan hadith Rasulullah S.A.W yang berbunyi:
“Sesiapa yang mempunyai keinginan untuk sesuatu lalu ditundukkan keinginan itu demi orang lain, maka dia akan mendapat pengampunan Allah.”
Satu lagi kisah yang dimuatkan juga ialah kisah tiga orang askar yang tercedera di Perang Uhud, dimana apabila seorang daripada mereka didatangi seorang wanita yang ditugaskan memberi air, disuruh wanita itu berikan air itu kepada sahabatnya yang lain, lalu wanita ini bergegas kepada sahabat yang kedua ini. Sahabat ini juga menyuruh wanita itu memberikan air kepada sahabat yang ketiga, justeru wanita ini terus bergegas untuk memberikan air kepada sahabat yang ketiga ini. Sampainya wanita ini kepada sahabat yang ketiga, sahabat ini menyuruh wanita itu untuk memberikan air kepada sahabat yang pertama. Sampainya wanita itu kepada sahabat yang pertama, didapatinya bahawa sahabat yang pertama ini telah syahid. Lalu beliau bergegas kepada sahabat yang kedua,dan didapati bahawa sahabat ini juga turut syahid. Akhir sekali wanita ini bergegas kepada sahabat yang ketiga dan didapatinya bahawa beliau juga turut syahid. Betapa besarnya pengorbanan sahabat-sahabat ini demi cinta mereka terhadap satu sama lain!
Jelaslah bahawa kita ini begitu kerdil untuk melakukan pengorbanan yang begitu besar dilakukan oleh para sahabat Rasulullah. Namun sebagaimana yang dinyatakan di dalam Al-Quran, Allah tiada membebankan seseorang itu diluar kemampuannya. Sebagai seorang pelajar, apakah pengorbanan yang kita dapat lakukan?
Pada peringkat usia ini sudah tentu pengorbanan kita lebih khusus kepada bidang keilmuan. Saya anjurkan kepada diri saya dan sahabat-sahabat untuk mengorbankan waktu dan tenaga yang ada untuk mencari ilmu yang bermanfaat, baik ilmu pengetahuan maupun ilmu pengenalan yakni ma’rifah. Contohilah semangat dan budaya ilmu yang dimiliki sarjana-sarjana silam kita. Sebagai contoh, Ibnu Sina sanggup membaca kitab Aristotle beratus-ratus kali tanpa jemu hanya untuk memahaminya. Al-Jahiz itu menulis begitu banyak kitab sehingga dikatakan bahawa beliau telah menulis kitab yang menyentuh kesemua bidang ilmu yang terdapat pada masanya, dan karangannya yang termasyhur ialah Kitab Al-Hayawan yang menjadi buku rujukan tentang haiwan dan ekologi untuk beratus-ratus tahun. Pelajarilah bahasa asing, terutama sekali bahasa Arab, agar dapat memahami ilmu-ilmu tamadun mereka. Mungkin kalau saudara renungkan hadith Rasulullah yang berbunyi: “Belajarlah hingga ke negeri Cina”, saudara akan dapati bahawa kalau ingin mendalami ilmu tamadun Cina ini haruslah terlebih dahulu melakukan pelbagai persiapan, termasuklah dari segi kewangan dan penguasaan bahasa.
Akhir kata, semoga kita sentiasa aktif dalam merenungkan ma’na-ma’na, baik dalam kitab Al-Qur’an maupun Al-Qur’an yang lebih besar yakni alam semesta ciptaan Allah ini. Amin.
Wallahu ‘Alam
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Mensainskan Islam: Istilah Bermasalah
Saya merujuk kepada artikel BH yang bertajuk 'Mensainskan Islam'. Meskipun ia merupakan suatu makalah yang agak menarik, ada beberapa perkara yang bagi saya memerlukan huraian yang lebih lanjut, terutama sekali penggunaan istilah 'mensainskan Islam'yang bagi saya agak kontroversial. Istilah tersebut seolah-olah memberi gambaran bahawa agama Islam itu sendiri tidak cukup sempurna dan memerlukan sains untuk menyempurnakannya. Malah, ia juga meletakkan sains itu pada peringkat yang lebih tinggi dari segi kebenarannya, justeru perlu kepada agama untuk 'disainskan'.
Harus ditekankan disini bahawa ilmu sains itu bukan neutral ataupun bebas nilai. Malah ia sarat dengan nilai-nilai dari pandangan alam para saintis yang membuat kajian mengenai fenomena alam itu. Menurut Sayyed Hossain Nasr, sains itu adalah suatu aktiviti intelektual yang bersifat 'cultural', lantas sains itu tidak boleh dilihat sebagai kebenaran mutlak kerana kebergantungan aktiviti sains itu pada elemen-elemen kemasyarakatan. Justeru, adalah tidak adil jika sains moden yang sarat dengan nilai-nilai sekular dan banyak berpaksikan metafizika dan falsafah Yunani mengenai alam semesta itu dijadikan kayu pengukur untuk agama Islam yang berpaksikan keTauhidan kepada Allah S.W.T dan bertunjang kepada Wahyu.
Tambahan pula, perlu juga disedari bahawa ilmu sains itu bersifat nisbi ataupun relatif, lantas tidak dapat dijadikan kebenaran mutlak. Penemuan sains sentiasa berubah mengikut peredaran masa. Sebagai contoh, pada suatu masa fenomena cahaya itu dianggap sebagai sejenis gelombang. Beberapa tahun selepas itu pula cahaya dilihat sebagai suatu partikel. Sayugianya, dengan merujuk kepada contoh yang diberikan, sains itu tidak tetap dan tiada pula dapat memberikan keyakinan, malah lebih bersifat dugaan semata-mata. Ini diperakui beberapa sarjana Barat sendiri, terutama sekali Thomas Kuhn dalam kitabnya yang berjudul "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" yang menghuraikan tentang teori-teori sains yang sentiasa berubah mengikut paradigma pemikiran masyarakat sains pada sesuatu zaman.
Menurut Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas, sains itu harus dilihat hanya sebagai "a definition of truth." Tujuan sains bukan untuk mencari kebenaran disebabkan beberapa kelemahan pada metodologinya yang bersandarkan pada akal dan pancaindera semata-mata. Sebagaimana yang dinyatakan Imam al-Haramain al-Juwayni, guru besar kepada Hujjatul Islam Imam al-Ghazali, proses pemikiran dan pengintelektualan semata-mata tidak semestinya menghasilkan ilmu. Tujuan sains yang sebenarnya ialah sebagai alat untuk menghuraikan ataupun mensyarahkan Kebenaran yang sudahpun diyakini, yakni kebenaran Wahyu, bukan sebagai jalan kepada kebenaran maupun kayu pengukur kebenaran agama.
Secara kesimpulannya, istilah 'mesainskan Islam' itu harus ditolak. Yang lebih wajar diberikan penekanan ialah 'Islamisasi Ilmu Semasa' yakni penerimaan yang bersifat berhati-hati dan kritikal terhadap ilmu-ilmu yang sarat nilai-nilai dari pandangan alam tamadun lain, terutama sekali tamadun Barat.
Wallahu 'Alam
Kepercayaan Kepada Taqdir Bukan Penghalang Sains
Saya merujuk kepada pandangan saudara Ahmad Faiz Aidi "Kuasai sains dan teknologi agar maju" yang tersiar pada ruangan Forum (BH, 14 Ogos). Beliau telah mengemukakan beberapa pandangan yang kontroversial dan kurang sesuai dari sudut pandangan alam Islam. Di dalam komentarnya yang singkat, beliau telah mengenalpasti 'keasyikan dalam kepercayaan taqdir' sebagai faktor utama kemunduran umat Islam dari segi sains dan teknologi.
Perlu diketahui bahawa tuduhan terhadap para Mutakallimun yang agung seperti Al-Asy'ari dan Al-Ghazali sebagai tokoh-tokoh agama yang anti-sains ini hanyalah suatu andaian belaka yang didirikan atas hujah-hujah Orientalist yang lemah dan terkeliru. Di dalam kitab "Al-Munqidh Min Al-Dalal" karangan Al-Ghazali, Imam Al-Ghazali menyebutkan bahawa para Mutakallimun tidak menolak pendekatan rasional terhadap agama, malah bertindak untuk mempertahankan sunnah dan agama dengan menunjukkan kekurangan logik dalam hujah dan premis puak Mu'tazilah dan Falasifah. Di dalam polemik mereka terhadap golongan yang telah membuat beberapa kesilapan fundamental dari segi aqidah ini, para Mutakallimun menekankan bahawa fenomena kausal tabii di pelbagai tahap adalah sentiasa berpunca terus dari Tuhan. Fenomena tabii tidak mempunyai kudrat tersendiri dan tidak terputus atau terbiar daripada kudrat Illahi. Justeru, Tuhan mempunyai kuasa mutlak atas segala sesuatu. Api yang membakar kapas bukan kerana api itu mempunyai kuasa untuk membakar secara tersendiri, tetapi kerana Tuhanlah yang mengizinkan fenomena pembakaran itu berlaku. Namun, pada masa yang sama, ini tidak bermakna bahawa kepercayaan sebegini akan menjadikan seseorang itu mempunyai pandangan yang fatalistik terhadap kehidupan.
Seyugianya, pandangan bahawa para Mutakallimun ini bersikap anti-sains adalah suatu penyalahtafsiran dan rumusan puak Orientalist seperti Sarton dan Wiet yang simplistik terhadap doktrin-doktrin yang para Mutakallimun pertahankan secara aqliah dan saintifik. Para Mutakallimun tidak mengatakan bahawa dengan kepercayaan terhadap kuasa mutlak Tuhan atas segala sesuatu maka kita harus berhenti mengkaji fenomena alam. Bahkan, di dalam kitab "Ihya Ulumuddin", Imam Al-Ghazali telah menyenaraikan ilmu aqliah, termasuk sains, sebagai ilmu fardhu kifayah, di mana jika masyarakat gagal menghasilkan pakar-pakar yang mencukupi dalam bidang-bidang ini maka ia akan mendatangkan kemudaratan terhadap masyarakat itu. Justeru, para Mutakallimun tidak menolak sains, namun sebaliknya bertindak untuk meletakkan ilmu sains dan falsafah itu pada tempatnya yang wajar, sekadar sebagai alat bagi mensyarahkan kebenaran wahyu yang telahpun diyakini dan bukan alternatif bagi wahyu.
Di dalam ceramah Timothy Winter, sarjana Cambridge tersohor dalam bidang Falsafah Islam tiga tahun yang lalu, beliau menegaskan bahawa karya ilmiah Al-Ghazali bukan penyebab kemunduran sains di dalam dunia Islam. Malah, dibuktikan di dalam sejarah tamadun Islam bahawa setelah tertulisnya kitab Tahafut Al-Falasifah bagi menerangkan kesilapan para Failasuf dalam bidang metafizika, umat Islam masih rancak menghasilkan tokoh-tokoh sains dan teknologi yang tersohor seperti Al-Jazari dan Ibn Al-Baitar. Tambahan pula, jatuhnya kota Konstantinople kepada tangan umat Islam dijalankan dengan senjata yang paling canggih dunia Eropah pernah saksikan pada waktu itu.
Menurut kajian Salah Zemeiche di dalam makalahnya "Fallacies Surrounding the Decline of Muslim Civilization", beliau menolak hujah Orientalist yang mengatakan bahawa kemunduran umat disebabkan kepercayaan umat terhadap Islam dan doktrin Mutakallimun. Sebaliknya, beliau mengetengahkan beberapa faktor yang lebih kuat. Antaranya ialah kelemahan politik dan ekonomi umat Islam sejak kejatuhan Baghdad dan Al-Andalus,yang menyebabkan suasana yang kurang sihat untuk berfikir dan melakukan kegiatan saintifik. Tambahan pula, menurut Hairudin Harun, kelemahan institusi sains akibat tidak mendapat sokongan dan tajaan pemerintah Islam yang lebih tertumpu kepada perkara-perkara material dan hiburan turut menjadi faktor yang lain. Tambahan juga, menurut Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas, ialah munculnya para ulama' yang kurang berwibawa, yang telah menyempitkan pemahaman agama hanya pada perkara-perkara yang bersifat perundangan dan peribadatan.
Secara tuntasnya, kepercayaan terhadap kuasa mutlak Allah S.W.T tidak menghalang seseorang Muslim itu untuk membuat kajian terhadap fenomena alam tabii. Berbekalkan cabaran Al-Qur'an kepada manusia untuk memikirkan tentang alam ciptaan Allah sebagai tanda kewujudan dan kekuasaannya, pemahaman pandangan alam Islam yang benar dan tepat serta suasana berfikir yang sihat dan menggalakkan, masyarakat Islam mampu menghasilkan tokoh-tokoh seperti yang terdahulu. Pada masa yang sama, kita juga seharusnya menolak pandangan ekstrem yang mempertuhankan aqal dan sains sebagai pengukur kemajuan dan kebenaran. Persoalan yang selanjutnya yang perlu difikirkan ialah ialah: Apakah takrif kemajuan yang sebenar? Adakah dengan kemajuan sains dan teknologi semata-mata, manusia itu maju? Mungkin persoalan ini boleh dijawab di dalam "Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam" karya Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas.
Wallahu 'Alam
Perlu diketahui bahawa tuduhan terhadap para Mutakallimun yang agung seperti Al-Asy'ari dan Al-Ghazali sebagai tokoh-tokoh agama yang anti-sains ini hanyalah suatu andaian belaka yang didirikan atas hujah-hujah Orientalist yang lemah dan terkeliru. Di dalam kitab "Al-Munqidh Min Al-Dalal" karangan Al-Ghazali, Imam Al-Ghazali menyebutkan bahawa para Mutakallimun tidak menolak pendekatan rasional terhadap agama, malah bertindak untuk mempertahankan sunnah dan agama dengan menunjukkan kekurangan logik dalam hujah dan premis puak Mu'tazilah dan Falasifah. Di dalam polemik mereka terhadap golongan yang telah membuat beberapa kesilapan fundamental dari segi aqidah ini, para Mutakallimun menekankan bahawa fenomena kausal tabii di pelbagai tahap adalah sentiasa berpunca terus dari Tuhan. Fenomena tabii tidak mempunyai kudrat tersendiri dan tidak terputus atau terbiar daripada kudrat Illahi. Justeru, Tuhan mempunyai kuasa mutlak atas segala sesuatu. Api yang membakar kapas bukan kerana api itu mempunyai kuasa untuk membakar secara tersendiri, tetapi kerana Tuhanlah yang mengizinkan fenomena pembakaran itu berlaku. Namun, pada masa yang sama, ini tidak bermakna bahawa kepercayaan sebegini akan menjadikan seseorang itu mempunyai pandangan yang fatalistik terhadap kehidupan.
Seyugianya, pandangan bahawa para Mutakallimun ini bersikap anti-sains adalah suatu penyalahtafsiran dan rumusan puak Orientalist seperti Sarton dan Wiet yang simplistik terhadap doktrin-doktrin yang para Mutakallimun pertahankan secara aqliah dan saintifik. Para Mutakallimun tidak mengatakan bahawa dengan kepercayaan terhadap kuasa mutlak Tuhan atas segala sesuatu maka kita harus berhenti mengkaji fenomena alam. Bahkan, di dalam kitab "Ihya Ulumuddin", Imam Al-Ghazali telah menyenaraikan ilmu aqliah, termasuk sains, sebagai ilmu fardhu kifayah, di mana jika masyarakat gagal menghasilkan pakar-pakar yang mencukupi dalam bidang-bidang ini maka ia akan mendatangkan kemudaratan terhadap masyarakat itu. Justeru, para Mutakallimun tidak menolak sains, namun sebaliknya bertindak untuk meletakkan ilmu sains dan falsafah itu pada tempatnya yang wajar, sekadar sebagai alat bagi mensyarahkan kebenaran wahyu yang telahpun diyakini dan bukan alternatif bagi wahyu.
Di dalam ceramah Timothy Winter, sarjana Cambridge tersohor dalam bidang Falsafah Islam tiga tahun yang lalu, beliau menegaskan bahawa karya ilmiah Al-Ghazali bukan penyebab kemunduran sains di dalam dunia Islam. Malah, dibuktikan di dalam sejarah tamadun Islam bahawa setelah tertulisnya kitab Tahafut Al-Falasifah bagi menerangkan kesilapan para Failasuf dalam bidang metafizika, umat Islam masih rancak menghasilkan tokoh-tokoh sains dan teknologi yang tersohor seperti Al-Jazari dan Ibn Al-Baitar. Tambahan pula, jatuhnya kota Konstantinople kepada tangan umat Islam dijalankan dengan senjata yang paling canggih dunia Eropah pernah saksikan pada waktu itu.
Menurut kajian Salah Zemeiche di dalam makalahnya "Fallacies Surrounding the Decline of Muslim Civilization", beliau menolak hujah Orientalist yang mengatakan bahawa kemunduran umat disebabkan kepercayaan umat terhadap Islam dan doktrin Mutakallimun. Sebaliknya, beliau mengetengahkan beberapa faktor yang lebih kuat. Antaranya ialah kelemahan politik dan ekonomi umat Islam sejak kejatuhan Baghdad dan Al-Andalus,yang menyebabkan suasana yang kurang sihat untuk berfikir dan melakukan kegiatan saintifik. Tambahan pula, menurut Hairudin Harun, kelemahan institusi sains akibat tidak mendapat sokongan dan tajaan pemerintah Islam yang lebih tertumpu kepada perkara-perkara material dan hiburan turut menjadi faktor yang lain. Tambahan juga, menurut Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas, ialah munculnya para ulama' yang kurang berwibawa, yang telah menyempitkan pemahaman agama hanya pada perkara-perkara yang bersifat perundangan dan peribadatan.
Secara tuntasnya, kepercayaan terhadap kuasa mutlak Allah S.W.T tidak menghalang seseorang Muslim itu untuk membuat kajian terhadap fenomena alam tabii. Berbekalkan cabaran Al-Qur'an kepada manusia untuk memikirkan tentang alam ciptaan Allah sebagai tanda kewujudan dan kekuasaannya, pemahaman pandangan alam Islam yang benar dan tepat serta suasana berfikir yang sihat dan menggalakkan, masyarakat Islam mampu menghasilkan tokoh-tokoh seperti yang terdahulu. Pada masa yang sama, kita juga seharusnya menolak pandangan ekstrem yang mempertuhankan aqal dan sains sebagai pengukur kemajuan dan kebenaran. Persoalan yang selanjutnya yang perlu difikirkan ialah ialah: Apakah takrif kemajuan yang sebenar? Adakah dengan kemajuan sains dan teknologi semata-mata, manusia itu maju? Mungkin persoalan ini boleh dijawab di dalam "Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam" karya Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas.
Wallahu 'Alam
Islam and Postmodernism
I am writing this because there is this notion that postmodernism and Islam can coexist, and that the term "Postmodern Muslim" is a valid term that can be used. This is a short summary written in a FAQ form which perhaps can be used as guide the sincere seeker of Truth.
What is Postmodernism?
Postmodernist thinkers themselves cannot agree on what postmodernism is. We will thus have to examine the views of two of the most authoritative thinkers of postmodernism in explaining what may constitute as postmodernism as an ideology.
According to Lyotard, postmodernism is a sceptic worldview against Grand Narratives and the argument for a diversity of narratives where not one narrative can dominate. In the words of Foucault, "there is no truth with a capital T"; there is no Universal Truth out there. All there is are stories or interpretations of the truth that is shaped by the community and society propagating it.
According to Baudrillard, postmodernism is the passive surrender of consumerist Man to the images that are bombarded onto them through various sources and channels of the media. In other words, images like Coke or Pepsi ads that pervade the media now becomes the reality of people living in urban centres. Reality is not what is objectively out there; it is created to satisfy our capitalist cravings and needs.
In summary, the postmodernist assert that our view of reality isn't as real as it once seemed. We have come to realise that there is not one reality but many different, often conflicting realities. We have come to see that ideas about truth are not eternal, but made. The ideas that only God is Yahweh or Allah, or the Goddess, or that some god named Bumba vomited the Moon and stars, or the scientific notion that the Moon is a physical body of such and such mass, or that Caucasian race is the master race- all these are man-made notions. They are inventions- they are social constructs.
Therefore the postmodernist, instead of dreaming of the day when all the world is united under the universal banner of Marxism or Christianity or Science, are more interested in seeing the world as a kind of carnival of cultures- a tribal gathering. The postmodern society does not mind if one story says that the Moon and Stars were vomited forth, or another story proclaims that the moon and stars were created by God. Postmodern audiences don't demand heterogeneous stories adding up to some grand, global, universal sense; they celebrate the fact that it's OK to stop making much sense. Because inevitably all our rituals, religious dogmas, myths, gender roles, self-concepts, beliefs, histories and theories are cultural, social inventions. As such, postmodernism also encourages participating in more than one Grand Narrative; its OK to be a Buddhist Christian!
What do our Muslim luminaries say about this postmodernist attitude?
How different are the postmodernists from the Sophists mentioned by the scholars of the past,the intellectual adversaries of Islam? The answer is, actually there isn't much difference. As mentioned by Imam Al-Ghazali, "once the real meaning is understood,there is no need to quibble over names".
The Sophists were mentioned in the authoritative text of the Muslims, "Aqa'id Al-Nasafi", by the grand imam Umar Ibn Muhammad Al-Nasafi,in paragraph 3:
"The People of Reality- may Allah honour them forever- say "The realities of things are established in their existence and the knowledge of them is certain in contradiction to the Sophist."
This authoritative text is commented on by Al-Taftahzani, who further classified the Sophists into three categories:
1) The Relativists (Al-indiyyah)
2) The Sceptics (Al-inadiyyah)
3) The Agnostics (La Adriyyah)
The Relativists believe that everything is subjective according to context. There is no Absolute Truth established out there because everything in subjective to interpretation. The Sceptics believe that everything must necessarily be cast in doubt following the assumption that there is no Universal Truth. The Agnostics believe that since everything cannot be known in certainty, therefore it follows that one should just be content in one's ignorance and celebrate the diversity of opinions, whether true or false.
So how different are the Postmodernists to the Sophists who:
1) Believe that there isn't a Universal, Objective Truth and Reality out there.
2) Believe that reality and narratives are social constructs that must be cast in suspicion and scepticism.
3) Believe that because there are so many interpretations of the truth whose objectivity cannot be determined, it is OK to celebrate the diversity of opinions?
What should the Muslim attitude towards postmodernism be?
I am not suggesting that everything is postmodernism is absurd and wrong and that we should not read postmodernist material because they are dead wrong :p I am suggesting that we should be critical; we must necessarily reject the axioms of postmodernism that would affect our aqidah. At the same time I think that postmodernist material is particularly useful in understanding the human (Western) condition in the modern era; of how nowadays we are so fixated to our television and computer screens thinking that the images they show is reality, about how many of us used to believe that Science is an objective description of reality only to know that it is itself a social construct, about how information is controlled by those who are in power etc. And what postmodernists say also help to debunk some stereotypes concerning Muslims and their history too.
We reject postmodernism as a philosophical programme that challenges our aqidah. This means we reject the notion that everything are social constructs, because if it were the case then the Quran is not Divine anymore and that our fundamental concepts that constitute our worldview would be rendered meaningless because all of them are but social constructs established by those who were in power. This is particularly erroneous because the Quran and the Sunnah are revealed to us by Allah s.w.t, safeguarded from error by a mutawatir chain of narrators who are pious and sincere. This source of knowledge is known to us as Khabar Sadiq, that is, true report that is successively transmitted upon the tongues of people whom reason cannot conceive that they would purpose together on a lie, and the report of the Messenger of Allah confirmed by miracle.
Following the fact that the Holy Quran is objectively established by Allah and transmitted to us by the Prophet and on the tongues of the sincere, we necessarily reject the notion that there is no objective truth out there. Because if there were no objective truth, then the religion of Islam is reduced to that of a social construct, that Islam is a partial (human-created) truth that must be supplemented by other human-created thoughts and ideologies, that Islam is not the Absolute Truth.
Postmodernism stops short at denying the truth of all Grand Narratives. As a Muslim, while we deny all other Grand Narratives, we proceed by declaring the Oneness of Allah and the Truth in His Religion. That is why our first pillar of Iman is to declare our Syahadah:
"There are no gods....but Allah,and Muhammad is His Messenger."
"And whoever seeks a religion (ideology) other than Islam, it will never be accepted of Him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers." 3:85
So is there such a thing called the "Postmodernist Muslim"?
The term itself is a paradox. Its like saying "colourless green ideas sleeps furiously"; a term that lacks meaning and hence isn't a term at all. A Muslim is a Muslim and a Postmodernist is a Postmodernist. However, there is no harm learning and appreciating postmodernism as long as we are critical enough to discern its truth from its falsehood.
"Oh Believers! Embrace Islam in its totality, and do not follow the footsteps of Syaithan. Verily Syaithan is your apparent enemy." 2:208-209
Wallahu 'Alam
What is Postmodernism?
Postmodernist thinkers themselves cannot agree on what postmodernism is. We will thus have to examine the views of two of the most authoritative thinkers of postmodernism in explaining what may constitute as postmodernism as an ideology.
According to Lyotard, postmodernism is a sceptic worldview against Grand Narratives and the argument for a diversity of narratives where not one narrative can dominate. In the words of Foucault, "there is no truth with a capital T"; there is no Universal Truth out there. All there is are stories or interpretations of the truth that is shaped by the community and society propagating it.
According to Baudrillard, postmodernism is the passive surrender of consumerist Man to the images that are bombarded onto them through various sources and channels of the media. In other words, images like Coke or Pepsi ads that pervade the media now becomes the reality of people living in urban centres. Reality is not what is objectively out there; it is created to satisfy our capitalist cravings and needs.
In summary, the postmodernist assert that our view of reality isn't as real as it once seemed. We have come to realise that there is not one reality but many different, often conflicting realities. We have come to see that ideas about truth are not eternal, but made. The ideas that only God is Yahweh or Allah, or the Goddess, or that some god named Bumba vomited the Moon and stars, or the scientific notion that the Moon is a physical body of such and such mass, or that Caucasian race is the master race- all these are man-made notions. They are inventions- they are social constructs.
Therefore the postmodernist, instead of dreaming of the day when all the world is united under the universal banner of Marxism or Christianity or Science, are more interested in seeing the world as a kind of carnival of cultures- a tribal gathering. The postmodern society does not mind if one story says that the Moon and Stars were vomited forth, or another story proclaims that the moon and stars were created by God. Postmodern audiences don't demand heterogeneous stories adding up to some grand, global, universal sense; they celebrate the fact that it's OK to stop making much sense. Because inevitably all our rituals, religious dogmas, myths, gender roles, self-concepts, beliefs, histories and theories are cultural, social inventions. As such, postmodernism also encourages participating in more than one Grand Narrative; its OK to be a Buddhist Christian!
What do our Muslim luminaries say about this postmodernist attitude?
How different are the postmodernists from the Sophists mentioned by the scholars of the past,the intellectual adversaries of Islam? The answer is, actually there isn't much difference. As mentioned by Imam Al-Ghazali, "once the real meaning is understood,there is no need to quibble over names".
The Sophists were mentioned in the authoritative text of the Muslims, "Aqa'id Al-Nasafi", by the grand imam Umar Ibn Muhammad Al-Nasafi,in paragraph 3:
"The People of Reality- may Allah honour them forever- say "The realities of things are established in their existence and the knowledge of them is certain in contradiction to the Sophist."
This authoritative text is commented on by Al-Taftahzani, who further classified the Sophists into three categories:
1) The Relativists (Al-indiyyah)
2) The Sceptics (Al-inadiyyah)
3) The Agnostics (La Adriyyah)
The Relativists believe that everything is subjective according to context. There is no Absolute Truth established out there because everything in subjective to interpretation. The Sceptics believe that everything must necessarily be cast in doubt following the assumption that there is no Universal Truth. The Agnostics believe that since everything cannot be known in certainty, therefore it follows that one should just be content in one's ignorance and celebrate the diversity of opinions, whether true or false.
So how different are the Postmodernists to the Sophists who:
1) Believe that there isn't a Universal, Objective Truth and Reality out there.
2) Believe that reality and narratives are social constructs that must be cast in suspicion and scepticism.
3) Believe that because there are so many interpretations of the truth whose objectivity cannot be determined, it is OK to celebrate the diversity of opinions?
What should the Muslim attitude towards postmodernism be?
I am not suggesting that everything is postmodernism is absurd and wrong and that we should not read postmodernist material because they are dead wrong :p I am suggesting that we should be critical; we must necessarily reject the axioms of postmodernism that would affect our aqidah. At the same time I think that postmodernist material is particularly useful in understanding the human (Western) condition in the modern era; of how nowadays we are so fixated to our television and computer screens thinking that the images they show is reality, about how many of us used to believe that Science is an objective description of reality only to know that it is itself a social construct, about how information is controlled by those who are in power etc. And what postmodernists say also help to debunk some stereotypes concerning Muslims and their history too.
We reject postmodernism as a philosophical programme that challenges our aqidah. This means we reject the notion that everything are social constructs, because if it were the case then the Quran is not Divine anymore and that our fundamental concepts that constitute our worldview would be rendered meaningless because all of them are but social constructs established by those who were in power. This is particularly erroneous because the Quran and the Sunnah are revealed to us by Allah s.w.t, safeguarded from error by a mutawatir chain of narrators who are pious and sincere. This source of knowledge is known to us as Khabar Sadiq, that is, true report that is successively transmitted upon the tongues of people whom reason cannot conceive that they would purpose together on a lie, and the report of the Messenger of Allah confirmed by miracle.
Following the fact that the Holy Quran is objectively established by Allah and transmitted to us by the Prophet and on the tongues of the sincere, we necessarily reject the notion that there is no objective truth out there. Because if there were no objective truth, then the religion of Islam is reduced to that of a social construct, that Islam is a partial (human-created) truth that must be supplemented by other human-created thoughts and ideologies, that Islam is not the Absolute Truth.
Postmodernism stops short at denying the truth of all Grand Narratives. As a Muslim, while we deny all other Grand Narratives, we proceed by declaring the Oneness of Allah and the Truth in His Religion. That is why our first pillar of Iman is to declare our Syahadah:
"There are no gods....but Allah,and Muhammad is His Messenger."
"And whoever seeks a religion (ideology) other than Islam, it will never be accepted of Him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers." 3:85
So is there such a thing called the "Postmodernist Muslim"?
The term itself is a paradox. Its like saying "colourless green ideas sleeps furiously"; a term that lacks meaning and hence isn't a term at all. A Muslim is a Muslim and a Postmodernist is a Postmodernist. However, there is no harm learning and appreciating postmodernism as long as we are critical enough to discern its truth from its falsehood.
"Oh Believers! Embrace Islam in its totality, and do not follow the footsteps of Syaithan. Verily Syaithan is your apparent enemy." 2:208-209
Wallahu 'Alam
Muslims and Science: Schools of thought
This is a summary of the various ways in which Muslims perceive science in relation to Islam, which I hope would be of benefit to some of you. Most of it is taken from my own observations in the contemporary writings of Muslims with regards to science, and special references to the articles by Dr Adi Setia and I. Kalic. Do note that the term 'science' here refers strictly only to the systematic investigation of natural phenomena, as it is popularly known by the masses.
1. Historical view of Islamic Science
In this school of thought, Islamic science is viewed from a historical perspective that is somewhat detached from the realities of secular science as taught in schools today.They are classified into 2 groups:
a. The formal academic discipline that "studies the history of the development of empirical science and technology in Islamic Civilization in history" vis-a-vis sciences of earlier civilizations (Greeks, Indians etc.) and later ones (Europe). This view reduces Islamic science to the act of romanticizing and glorifying the works of scholars like Ibn Haiytham, Ibn Sina, Al-Jazari etc. Discourses are very much focused on the extent of Muslim contribution in the past to the world and fixated on historical trivia like "Muslims invented the toothbrush first",with the intent of inspiring today's generation of Muslims to be active participants in modern scientific and technological endeavours, to emulate or revive the spirit of the past, without considering the epistemological and metaphysical implications of modern science to Muslim thought. As such, this view looks at the history of science in a linear fashion, as if science is neutral and is passively passed on from the Greeks and the Indians to the Muslims, and then to the Europeans,without taking into account the differences in epistemology and metaphysics that is actually very significant between the different civilizations.
b. The formal academic discipline that "pertains to the subject matter of the sub-discipline in Islamic Philosophy that serves to describe and clarify in objective, contemporary terms the methodological and philosophical principles that have guided or undergirded the cultivation of the sciences in Islamic civilization. This meaning renders Islamic science as part of philosophy and philosophy of science in general, and focuses more on the conceptual or intellectual rather than the empirical, practical or artifactual aspects of Islamic science." This view of Islamic Science, however useful, stops short at the conceptual and philosophical level detached from contemporary realities, without recommending any framework or program of science that can be applied to modern day context as part of our ijtihad against the backdrop of contemporary challenges.
2. Epistemological view of Islamic Science
In this school of thought, science is examined in terms of its usefulness as a body of knowledge, or in terms of its nature in Man's ways to know. There are two largely divergent sub schools of thought that view Islamic Science as a problem of epistemology, and they are:
c. The first view is a positive view of modern science, observed to be the most popular view of Islamic Science especially here in Singapore. In this view, also to be known as Bucailism following the works of Maurice Bucaille, the Muslim scientist-scholar seeks to justapose the Quran and the religion with the recent discoveries of modern science. By subjecting selective Quranic verses to empirical scrutiny and successfully demonstrating that those verses are in line with some modern scientific facts, they believe that they have 'proven' some Quranic 'scientific miracles' that preceded modern science. They argue that since these scientific facts are in the Quran and the Quran revealed these things some 1400 years ago, the Quran actually predicts these facts much earlier before modern scientists like Einstein did. This would then demonstrate the Quran as the Word of God. Other variations of this school of thought include examining the health benefits of certain rituals as indicated in the recent book on solat and its health benefits, and its more extreme variation that is fixated on empirical understanding of the Ghayb, seen in the works of some scientists who seek to study things like the temperature of hell-fire and the speed of angels etc. As such, modern science is to be totally embraced without criticism and scrutiny, as if it is neutral and value-free, since it always and will always be in line with the religion. And in response to some who challenge the validity of modern science and technology which has brought down upon us this modern day crisis such as the environmental problems, proponents of this school of thought propose ad-hoc, patchwork solutions as if the crisis is a problem of personal ethics and not one that is systemic in nature.
This view, though seen as a popular medium of da'wah among some religious teachers, is rather problematic because it stems from the implicit and rather unconscious premise that the Qur'an must be proven empirically as the Word of God, as if the Quran's status as divine revelation is already cast in doubt similar to that of the Bible. This unfortunately shows that the disease of doubt in the West has infected the minds of the Muslims today, when Muslims have actually no such problems, in view of the historical fact of how the precision,accuracy and meanings of the Quran revealed to our Master Rasulullah S.A.W is safeguarded by many intellectual mechanisms that were formulated by our predecessors. Additionally, this view neglects the everchanging, relative, value-laden nature of science, demonstrating their failure in looking at science from a deeper philosophical perspective.
d. The second view is a negative sociological view of modern science very much in contrast with the first. This school of thought borrows its arguments from postmodernist thinkers such as Lyotard and Kuhn, demonstrating the value-laden, subjective, speculative nature of modern science. As such, science is no longer an arbiter of objective truth. Science is subjective because interpretation of scientific data is never separate from some a priori assumptions and beliefs that are held by the scientist studying those natural phenomena; the worldview of the scientist. If the scientist is a secularist and Darwinist/Newtonian, then it follows that his observations and theories will include those elements from the secular, Darwinist/Newtonian worldview. The fact that scientific theories are continually being replaced by later findings demonstrate the ever-changing premise of science too. Therefore, it is suggested that Muslims must be critical of modern science. They must be equipped with sufficient knowledge of the religion to discriminate between true findings and false ones. This view of science, however useful, can be seen as reactive as opposed to proactive. Islamization of modern science can only occur from the outside because this view lacks the intrinsic building blocks from which a suitable scientific program can be formulated and applied.
3. Metaphysical view of science
This last view of science follows from the previous epistemological view of science, but provides the intrinsic building blocks from which a proper program of Islamic science and technology can be realised. These building blocks are the metaphysics of Islam, which in the past was "largely undertaken within the more general disciplinary frameworks of falsafah, kalam and hikmah". Because any theory of science rests on a more general theory or axiom, and the most general theory is the theory of reality, which Muslims derive from the metaphysics of Islam. This view of Islamic science necessitates the reading of history and philosophy of Islamic science as programmatic in nature so that we can "build the capacity to construct and cultivate a new, contemporarily relevant Islamic science and Technology that, on the one hand, will manifest and realize our value system and hence directed toward fulfilling our physical, emotional and spiritual needs, and, on the other, engage constructively with Western modern science and technology". In this way, Islamization of modern science occurs from the inside; with the understanding of metaphysics we can then creatively formulate our own scientific theories (as opposed to passive surrender to the findings of others) and empirical studies supporting the metaphysical framework in place, and to formulate a suitable theory of technology management that is in accordance to our principles of jurisprudence (maqasid syariah).
This is the view taken by our teacher, Prof. Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas, as well as other scholars such as S.H Nasr and Alparsalan Acingenck.
Wallahu 'Alam
1. Historical view of Islamic Science
In this school of thought, Islamic science is viewed from a historical perspective that is somewhat detached from the realities of secular science as taught in schools today.They are classified into 2 groups:
a. The formal academic discipline that "studies the history of the development of empirical science and technology in Islamic Civilization in history" vis-a-vis sciences of earlier civilizations (Greeks, Indians etc.) and later ones (Europe). This view reduces Islamic science to the act of romanticizing and glorifying the works of scholars like Ibn Haiytham, Ibn Sina, Al-Jazari etc. Discourses are very much focused on the extent of Muslim contribution in the past to the world and fixated on historical trivia like "Muslims invented the toothbrush first",with the intent of inspiring today's generation of Muslims to be active participants in modern scientific and technological endeavours, to emulate or revive the spirit of the past, without considering the epistemological and metaphysical implications of modern science to Muslim thought. As such, this view looks at the history of science in a linear fashion, as if science is neutral and is passively passed on from the Greeks and the Indians to the Muslims, and then to the Europeans,without taking into account the differences in epistemology and metaphysics that is actually very significant between the different civilizations.
b. The formal academic discipline that "pertains to the subject matter of the sub-discipline in Islamic Philosophy that serves to describe and clarify in objective, contemporary terms the methodological and philosophical principles that have guided or undergirded the cultivation of the sciences in Islamic civilization. This meaning renders Islamic science as part of philosophy and philosophy of science in general, and focuses more on the conceptual or intellectual rather than the empirical, practical or artifactual aspects of Islamic science." This view of Islamic Science, however useful, stops short at the conceptual and philosophical level detached from contemporary realities, without recommending any framework or program of science that can be applied to modern day context as part of our ijtihad against the backdrop of contemporary challenges.
2. Epistemological view of Islamic Science
In this school of thought, science is examined in terms of its usefulness as a body of knowledge, or in terms of its nature in Man's ways to know. There are two largely divergent sub schools of thought that view Islamic Science as a problem of epistemology, and they are:
c. The first view is a positive view of modern science, observed to be the most popular view of Islamic Science especially here in Singapore. In this view, also to be known as Bucailism following the works of Maurice Bucaille, the Muslim scientist-scholar seeks to justapose the Quran and the religion with the recent discoveries of modern science. By subjecting selective Quranic verses to empirical scrutiny and successfully demonstrating that those verses are in line with some modern scientific facts, they believe that they have 'proven' some Quranic 'scientific miracles' that preceded modern science. They argue that since these scientific facts are in the Quran and the Quran revealed these things some 1400 years ago, the Quran actually predicts these facts much earlier before modern scientists like Einstein did. This would then demonstrate the Quran as the Word of God. Other variations of this school of thought include examining the health benefits of certain rituals as indicated in the recent book on solat and its health benefits, and its more extreme variation that is fixated on empirical understanding of the Ghayb, seen in the works of some scientists who seek to study things like the temperature of hell-fire and the speed of angels etc. As such, modern science is to be totally embraced without criticism and scrutiny, as if it is neutral and value-free, since it always and will always be in line with the religion. And in response to some who challenge the validity of modern science and technology which has brought down upon us this modern day crisis such as the environmental problems, proponents of this school of thought propose ad-hoc, patchwork solutions as if the crisis is a problem of personal ethics and not one that is systemic in nature.
This view, though seen as a popular medium of da'wah among some religious teachers, is rather problematic because it stems from the implicit and rather unconscious premise that the Qur'an must be proven empirically as the Word of God, as if the Quran's status as divine revelation is already cast in doubt similar to that of the Bible. This unfortunately shows that the disease of doubt in the West has infected the minds of the Muslims today, when Muslims have actually no such problems, in view of the historical fact of how the precision,accuracy and meanings of the Quran revealed to our Master Rasulullah S.A.W is safeguarded by many intellectual mechanisms that were formulated by our predecessors. Additionally, this view neglects the everchanging, relative, value-laden nature of science, demonstrating their failure in looking at science from a deeper philosophical perspective.
d. The second view is a negative sociological view of modern science very much in contrast with the first. This school of thought borrows its arguments from postmodernist thinkers such as Lyotard and Kuhn, demonstrating the value-laden, subjective, speculative nature of modern science. As such, science is no longer an arbiter of objective truth. Science is subjective because interpretation of scientific data is never separate from some a priori assumptions and beliefs that are held by the scientist studying those natural phenomena; the worldview of the scientist. If the scientist is a secularist and Darwinist/Newtonian, then it follows that his observations and theories will include those elements from the secular, Darwinist/Newtonian worldview. The fact that scientific theories are continually being replaced by later findings demonstrate the ever-changing premise of science too. Therefore, it is suggested that Muslims must be critical of modern science. They must be equipped with sufficient knowledge of the religion to discriminate between true findings and false ones. This view of science, however useful, can be seen as reactive as opposed to proactive. Islamization of modern science can only occur from the outside because this view lacks the intrinsic building blocks from which a suitable scientific program can be formulated and applied.
3. Metaphysical view of science
This last view of science follows from the previous epistemological view of science, but provides the intrinsic building blocks from which a proper program of Islamic science and technology can be realised. These building blocks are the metaphysics of Islam, which in the past was "largely undertaken within the more general disciplinary frameworks of falsafah, kalam and hikmah". Because any theory of science rests on a more general theory or axiom, and the most general theory is the theory of reality, which Muslims derive from the metaphysics of Islam. This view of Islamic science necessitates the reading of history and philosophy of Islamic science as programmatic in nature so that we can "build the capacity to construct and cultivate a new, contemporarily relevant Islamic science and Technology that, on the one hand, will manifest and realize our value system and hence directed toward fulfilling our physical, emotional and spiritual needs, and, on the other, engage constructively with Western modern science and technology". In this way, Islamization of modern science occurs from the inside; with the understanding of metaphysics we can then creatively formulate our own scientific theories (as opposed to passive surrender to the findings of others) and empirical studies supporting the metaphysical framework in place, and to formulate a suitable theory of technology management that is in accordance to our principles of jurisprudence (maqasid syariah).
This is the view taken by our teacher, Prof. Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas, as well as other scholars such as S.H Nasr and Alparsalan Acingenck.
Wallahu 'Alam
Friday, January 14, 2011
Biology and Islamisation
"Our present engagement is with the challenges of an alien worldview surreptitiously introduced into Muslim thought and belief by confused modernist Muslim scholars, intellectuals, academics, writers and their followers, as well as by religious deviationists and extremists of many sorts. They have unwittingly come under the spell of modern secular Western philosophy and science, its technology and ideology which have disseminated a global contagion of secularization as a philosophical program. We are not unaware of the fact that not all of Western science and technology are necessarily objectionable to religion; but this does not mean that we have to uncritically accept the scientific and philosophical theories that go along with the science and the technology themselves, without first understanding their implications and testing the validity of the values that accompany the theories. Islam possesses within itself the source of its claim to truth and does not need scientific and philosophical theories to justify such a claim." (Al-Attas, 2001)
Modern secular biology can be defined as the teleological study of biological phenomena comprising of laws and classification of biological entities within an ecological system that operates within an Aristotelian framework of causality. Putting this simply, the secular approach to biology assumes that final causes end in nature itself; that nature runs on its own laws due to potentialities inherent in the physics and chemistry of atoms and molecules in a living thing or system. This means that a thing is alive and has certain characteristics solely because of the physical and chemical arrangement and mechanism of atoms and molecules in the basic unit of life known as the cell. Hence, secular biology effectively denies the role of God in nature as it seeks to provide a logical explanation of why and how living things react or behave in a certain way through natural 'laws'; Mendel laws, Hardy-Weinberg law and the law of natural selection - axioms of secular biology. Additionally, many modern textbooks on biology accept the 'scientific fact' of human evolution. This dogmatic acceptance is rather strange, because science stops when you stop challenging your beliefs! These axioms of biology is appropriately covered by Durali in his essay in honor of Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas Feschrift.
While as Muslims we do not deny a rational approach towards understanding nature, we cannot accept this definition of biology because this assumes that the universe is a mechanistic universe; a self-sustaining machine that can run on its own without the need of a God, as Weber and Al-Attas puts it, the disenchantment of nature. We believe that God is always Omnipresent and Active, consistently creating, annihilating and re-creating the universe, and that such natural laws only reflect the customary habits of God (sunnatullah) of which He can suspend the laws of nature as and when He likes (Occasionalism). This is in opposition to the Newtonian theological view of a passive God that creates these natural laws and let them run on its own while He seemingly 'sleeps' afterwards.
Additionally, this objectification of nature has led to many environmental and ecological problems that have surfaced in modern times, because nature is viewed as a mere object that is to be studied and manipulated to suit human wants and desires. Nature is no longer viewed as a sacred object or a symbol reflecting God's Magnificence, Justice and Wisdom, and therefore is open to atrocities of modern Man in his insatiable thirst to satisfy unlimited wants defined by modern secular economics. Schuon attacks this secular approach to nature, arguing that it is mindless fact-gathering endeavor devoid of meaning and wisdom, because contemplation of nature which would result in Man realising his true role as a steward for nature is absent in what is to be known as a 'scientific' activity.
So how exactly should we Muslims respond to this? I am not suggesting a Luddite approach such that we should burn away all those textbooks and reject all findings by scientists. I am suggesting that we should be more critical of things and their underlying assumptions. We need a redefinition of biology such that our creative energies put into our contemplation and study of nature would be more in line with our values as a Muslim. As mentioned by Al-Attas, education is:
the recognition and acknowledgement, progressively instilled into man, of the proper places of things in the order of creation, such that it leads to the recognition of God in the order of being and existence.
Perhaps we can explore a systematic redefinition of biology in my next exposition on this subject matter. Wallahu 'Alam.
Modern secular biology can be defined as the teleological study of biological phenomena comprising of laws and classification of biological entities within an ecological system that operates within an Aristotelian framework of causality. Putting this simply, the secular approach to biology assumes that final causes end in nature itself; that nature runs on its own laws due to potentialities inherent in the physics and chemistry of atoms and molecules in a living thing or system. This means that a thing is alive and has certain characteristics solely because of the physical and chemical arrangement and mechanism of atoms and molecules in the basic unit of life known as the cell. Hence, secular biology effectively denies the role of God in nature as it seeks to provide a logical explanation of why and how living things react or behave in a certain way through natural 'laws'; Mendel laws, Hardy-Weinberg law and the law of natural selection - axioms of secular biology. Additionally, many modern textbooks on biology accept the 'scientific fact' of human evolution. This dogmatic acceptance is rather strange, because science stops when you stop challenging your beliefs! These axioms of biology is appropriately covered by Durali in his essay in honor of Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas Feschrift.
While as Muslims we do not deny a rational approach towards understanding nature, we cannot accept this definition of biology because this assumes that the universe is a mechanistic universe; a self-sustaining machine that can run on its own without the need of a God, as Weber and Al-Attas puts it, the disenchantment of nature. We believe that God is always Omnipresent and Active, consistently creating, annihilating and re-creating the universe, and that such natural laws only reflect the customary habits of God (sunnatullah) of which He can suspend the laws of nature as and when He likes (Occasionalism). This is in opposition to the Newtonian theological view of a passive God that creates these natural laws and let them run on its own while He seemingly 'sleeps' afterwards.
Additionally, this objectification of nature has led to many environmental and ecological problems that have surfaced in modern times, because nature is viewed as a mere object that is to be studied and manipulated to suit human wants and desires. Nature is no longer viewed as a sacred object or a symbol reflecting God's Magnificence, Justice and Wisdom, and therefore is open to atrocities of modern Man in his insatiable thirst to satisfy unlimited wants defined by modern secular economics. Schuon attacks this secular approach to nature, arguing that it is mindless fact-gathering endeavor devoid of meaning and wisdom, because contemplation of nature which would result in Man realising his true role as a steward for nature is absent in what is to be known as a 'scientific' activity.
So how exactly should we Muslims respond to this? I am not suggesting a Luddite approach such that we should burn away all those textbooks and reject all findings by scientists. I am suggesting that we should be more critical of things and their underlying assumptions. We need a redefinition of biology such that our creative energies put into our contemplation and study of nature would be more in line with our values as a Muslim. As mentioned by Al-Attas, education is:
the recognition and acknowledgement, progressively instilled into man, of the proper places of things in the order of creation, such that it leads to the recognition of God in the order of being and existence.
Perhaps we can explore a systematic redefinition of biology in my next exposition on this subject matter. Wallahu 'Alam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)