Allow me to post a caveat on some people who dismiss my writings as coming from an unqualified person, and that what I am writing about are simply 'unbeneficial philosophical speculation' that is not classified under the category of Fardhu Ain knowledge. These people are not in any position to evaluate my qualifications in the first place, and when asked to show proof for such accusations, they offer none.
My clarification of the matter is that if they had read carefully what I have written in the first place, they would not have hurled such accusations. What I have written are rational proofs for the existence of God, and a rational demonstration of Al-Qadar, the concept of adab and the concept of freedom in Islam; all these are fundamental components of the worldview of Islam and thus can be classified as Fardhu Ain knowledge. It may seem like a philosophical speculation because there is no traditional proof (dalil naqli) from the Qur'an or the Sunnah furnished throughout my writings, but readers must understand that I am writing with the view that these things can be taught in our national schools. And with such a context in mind, educators in secular national schools cannot be overtly religious about these things, but they can offer rational proofs which guide students to contemplate on such matters further. Therefore I am writing from the view of a Muslim science educator trying to teach spiritual matters without being obviously religious about it. The essence of my writings are fardhu ain, yet the form may not seem apparently fardhu ain-ish. I derive this from the wisdom of our predecessors like Imam Al-Ghazali and Ibn Sina, who used the sciences of their day as an instrument to discuss spiritual and metaphysical issues. For instance, Imam Al-Ghazali packaged his work on Tasawwuf as if it is a branch of Alchemy in Kimiyat As-Sa'adah (Alchemy of Happiness). Ibn Sina, popularly known as a skilled doctor, published his book on Metaphysics in the form of a book on Medicine; it was thus known as As-Syifa' (The Medicine).
If it is apparent to others that what I have written is wrong, I would like to apologize and would suggest a proper discourse on it, without having to commit personal attacks and sophistry. Knowledge without practice is useless and unbeneficial, and this is how to my mind and in my role as an educator to address the problem of the loss of adab. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can parrot that the solution is to 'instill adab', yet when asked the question 'how to', they stumble, because they have not understood the concept properly in the first place, nor have they attempted to practise them in their professions and in their personal lives.
It is my desire to clarify that there is a difference between unaided philosophical speculation and aided philosophical speculation. In the first, a conclusion on spiritual and metaphysical proofs are arrived at solely using the faculty of imagination of the soul (Mutakhayyilah). In the second, a conclusion of spiritual and metaphysical proofs are arrived at using the same faculty, but with guidance from Revelation and from those who are in close contact with the spiritual realm. There is a third category of people though; those who reject both methods and claim that metaphysical and spiritual truths are not things that can be discussed rationally; these are the Literalists.
My teacher once told me, that Revelation is like the light from the Sun, and reason is like our eyes. If we close our eyes, we would not be able to benefit from the light of the Sun. Likewise, if we reject a rational approach, we would not be able to benefit from Revelation too. Which is why in most books on Kalam, our scholars usually start by reminding their readers of the importance in using our intellect. As mentioned by Imam Al-Haramayn Al-Juwayni (teacher of the eminent Imam Al-Ghazali) in his Kitab Al-Irshad Ila Qawati Al-Adilla Fi Usul Al-I'tiqad (A Guide to Conclusive Proofs for the Principles of Belief):
Reasoning that confers proper understanding [in religion] is obligatory and perceiving its obligatoriness is part of the law itself and the aggregate of rules concerning these legal obligations come either from proofs derived from tradition or from premises behind the legal cases.
Wallahu 'Alam
No comments:
Post a Comment