Pendidikan Tentang Agama Harus Dilalui Dengan Ketertiban Dan Kesabaran

Oleh Siti Aisyah Jamil

Umat Islam kini mengalami pelbagai kesukaran untuk bangun dan memperbetulkan keadaan dunia yang semakin dicengkam berbagai dimensi kezaliman. Demi mencari huraian bagi permasalahan inilah timbul gesaan agar adanya usaha mencantas dari akarnya.  Justeru itu, kita harus bermula dengan memperbetulkan pemahaman tentang hakikat Islam.

Kejahilan terhadap perkara dasar seperti faham makna agama dan faham ilmu menyebabkan kezaliman mula tersebar di merata tempat. Zalim di sini merujuk kepada perbuatan di mana sesuatu perkara itu tidak diletakkan pada tempatnya yang wajar. Kezaliman boleh juga berlaku tatkala pelbagai kritikan atau lontaran kekata yang sinis terhadap Islam. Tidak kurang juga mereka yang sering menyoalkan sesuatu itu tanpa meneliti martabat ilmu dan kefahaman yang ada padanya ketika melontarkan soalan-soalan besar sebagai contoh soal qadha’ dan qadar. Soalan-soalan sebegini menampakkan tahap kefahamannya yang rendah mengenai perkara pokok iaitu rukun Islam, rukun Iman dan Sifat-Sifat Ilahi. Padahal, ilmu asasi inilah yang mesti diselesaikan dan kenal dengan sempurna terlebih dahulu. Bila perkara-perkara ini telah dipelajari, maka si penimba ilmu tiada lagi akan melontarkan soalan mengenai qadha' dan qadar kerana soalan itu akan terjawab sendiri dalam proses pendidikan yang tertib dan bertahap-tahap

Punca terjadinya rangkaian kealpaan-kejahilan-kezaliman ini bertitiktolak daripada kekeliruan ilmu. Harus difahamkan bahawa ilmu memerlukan dua proses yakni pengenalan (recognition) di mana tibanya ma’na dalam diri dan yang keduanya, pengakuan (acknowledgement) di mana tibanya diri kepada ma’na dan tahap kedua ini memerlukan suatu respons. Tidak hanya cukup pengenalan sahaja; setiap yang dikenali harus diikuti dengan amalan yang menunjukkan bahawa si penimba ilmu benar-benar mengakui ilmu yang digarapinya itu. Apa pula yang diertikan dengan ma’na? Secara mudahnya, ia bermaksud hakikat tentang sesuatu. Ma’na itu tiba bilamana kita kenal kedudukan sesuatu itu dengan hubungannya dengan sesuatu yang lain di dalam satu sistem dan juga tujuan sesuatu itu perlulah jelas. Contoh yang boleh diberikan ialah sebuah pena. Tidaklah mencukupi jika makna mengenai pena itu hanya disempitkan kepada bentuk fizikalnya sahaja (physical specifications). Ma'na sebenar pena harus juga merujuk kepada si pengguna pena yang harus menyedari bahawa tujuan pena ini ialah untuk menulis perkara yang baik-baik sahaja; tidak boleh yang beransur fitnah ataupun kemaksiatan. Ini yang dimaksudkan sebagai hubungan pena-pengguna dalam sesuatu sistem. Malangnya, dalam budaya ilmu Barat, sesuatu objek itu dikaji hanya sebagai objek semata-mata, tercerai daripada garisan etika yang ditetapkan syariah ataupun "the limit of truth."

Tambahan pula, dalam Islam, ilmu mesti dimulakan dengan yaqin dan inilah prisip awal ilmu, berbeza dengan budaya ilmu lainnya. Contohnya, meskipun sarjana Islam seperti Imam al-Ghazali dan para sarjana falsafah Yunani (Greek) seakan-akan bermula dengan andaian, namun perbezaan di antara mereka amatlah jelas. Imam al-Ghazali bermula dengan sesuatu yang diyakini tetapi hal ini tidak ada pada sarjana falsafah Yunani misalnya dalam konsep kewujudan Tuhan. Justeru ini bercanggah dengan dialectic method yang menjadi teras keilmuan Barat, yang sentiasa mencurigai segala perkara. Dengan demikian, falsafah Barat tidak mungkin akan mencapai kebenaran; kerana kebenaran itu sentiasa diragui.

Justeru, pendidikan semula seseorang insan agar membentuk “insan adabi” yakni insan yang beradab di mana proses menuntut ilmu pengenalan-pengakuan berlaku merupakan matlamat akhir pendidikan Islam. Jawapan bagi persoalan yang kompleks misalnya qadha’ dan qadar, hanya boleh digarap dengan menempuh pelajaran serta pendidikan semula mengenai Islam dan pandangan alam. Hakikat yang ditayang olehnya akan terjawab, sejajar dengan martabat kefahamannya yang akan meningkat dari tahap ke tahap yang lebih tinggi.

Peranan Masjid di zaman awal kebangkitan Islam

Penulis kita Siti Aisyah Jamil memberikan komentar tentang institusi masjid sebagai wadah perkembangan ilmu dan intelektual

Peranan Masjid di zaman awal kebangkitan Islam

Masjid merupakan sebuah instutusi pertama dibina semasa peristiwa hijrah Rasulullah s.a.w. dari Mekah al-Mukarramah ke Madinah al-Munawwarah. Dapat diperhatikan peri pentingnya institusi masjid yang sememangnya mempunyai pelbagai fungsi atau peranan. Pada zaman awal Islam dan zaman kegemilangannya, masjid dijadikan tempat di mana aktiviti kemasyarakatan, sosial, keilmuan dan pendidikan, riadah dan sebagainya berkembang. Tidak keterlaluan jika dikatakan institusi masjid ketika zaman itu merupakan nadi pengkajian ilmiah, penajaman pemikiran, penyempurnaan akhlak dan seterusnya menyumbang kepada sebuah peradaban atau tamadun.

Dari segi etimologinya, masjid berasal dari kata dasar sujud yang membawa maksud ta’at, patuh, tunduk dengan penuh hormat. Walaupun begitu, peranan masjid bukan hanya menyediakan tempat yang selesa untuk melakukan solat. Namun, harus difahamkan bahawa masjid merupakan tempat di mana aktiviti yang mencakupi pelbagai bidang diadakan sebagai manifestasi dari ketaatan kepada Allah s.w.t.

Keadaan awal Masjid Nabawi adalah amat sederhana. Namun begitu, peranan yang dimainkan bukanlah tertumpu kepada skop yang kecil. Bermodalkan masjid yang kecil inilah, Rasulullah s.a.w. membangunkan dunia melalui penggunaan maksima segenap potensi umat Islam hinggakan lahirlah Madinah, di mana secara harfiyahnya bermakna “pusat peradaban”.

Paling tidak, dari masjid yang bermula dengan keadaan sederhana itulah tertanamnya benih-benih peradaban baru umat manusia.  Di antara fungsi Masjid Nabawi sewaktu zaman Rasulullah s.a.w. ialah pusat perlindungan bagi golongan miskin dan para musafir dan juga tempat bermusyawarah dengan para Sahabat bagi mendapatkan pandangan tentang sesuatu isu. Menariknya, di Masjid Nabi terdapat sekumpulan pengkaji ilmu dan sarjana yang dikenali sebagai Ahl al-Suffah dan budaya ini diteruskan sepanjang sejarah tamadun Islam.

Pada zaman Sahabat pula peranan masjid tiada beza dengan zaman Rasulullah s.a.w. Fungsi utama tetap dua perkara yakni fungsi keagamaan seperti solat, dzikir, du’a dan iktikaf dan keduanya peranan sosial termasuk pusat administrasi pemerintahan, tempat permusyawarahan soal keagamaan serta tempat penerimaan tamu negara.

Dari itu, sebuah pembaharuan dari cara melihat peranan masjid-masjid sepatutnya dilakukan segera. Ini adalah kerana dengan pemahaman yang jelas dan lengkap terhadap fungsi masjid, kedudukannya yang stategik dan dekat dengan masyarakat memudahkan berbagai lapisan masyarakat untuk mendapatkan khidmat-khidmat yang diperlukan.

Meskipun pembelajaran dan pendidikan dalam Islam tidak hanya terbatas kepada tempat fizikal seperti bilik kuliah namun ini tidak menafikan peranan sebuah institusi pendidikan. Para pemikir Islam sepanjang sejarah tamadun Islam telah memperkenalkan tidak sedikit instutusi dan amalan-amalan ilmiah yang masih lagi digunapakai hingga kini contohnya konsep universiti, hospital (juga dikenali sebagai barismatan) dan pusat pemerhatian bintang (observatory), di mana semua ini bermula dengan masjid.

Oleh kerana masjid berperanan penting dalam melahirkan masyarakat Islam cemerlang dengan membudayakan ilmu di dalam institusi ini, harus ada usaha mengembalikan semula fungsi yang telah sekian lama dilupakan tersebut. Justeru, sdiharapkan dengan meletakkan peranan masjid di tempat yang wajar akan tertanam jua benih-benih yang melahirkan generasi umat Islam cemerlang yang membangunkan peradaban Islam.

Rujukan
Mariani Yahya (ed.), 2005, Pemikir Islam, Singapura: Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura.

Dr. Makhmud Syafe’i, Masjid Dalam Perspektif Sejarah dan Hukum Islam, http://file.upi.edu/Direktori/B%20-%20FPIPS/M%20K%20D%20U/195504281988031%20-%20MAKHMUD%20SYAFE%27I/MASJID%20DALAM%20PRESPEKTIF%20SEJARAH%20DAN%20HUKUM%20ISLAM%20%2810%20HALAMAN%29.pdf

Muhammad Hisyam Bin Mohamad, Kelesuan Institusi Masjid, http://www.ikim.gov.my/v5/index.php?lg=1&opt=com_article&grp=2&sec=&key=936&cmd=resetall

Tinjauan Ringkas Peri Ilmu dan Pandangan Alam: Pendahuluan

Guru kita Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas memberikan peringatan kepada kaum Muslimin tentang cabaran modenisasi dan pemikiran yang melanda, samada disedari ataupun tidak.

PENDAHULUAN

Lebih tiga puluh tahun dahulu (1973) saya telah menulis tentang kerosakan meluas lagi mendalam dalam ilmu dan akhlak masyarakat Islam sezaman; dan masalah ini masih giat menggenting di kalangan kita dan masih luput dari kefahaman dalam rangka tinjauan yang benar. Maksud saya dalam menjelaskan kedudukan kita yang sungguh bermasalah itu iaitu untuk menyedarkan Kaum Muslimin agar bersedia, dengan cara akliah yang sihat berdasarkan ilmu yang kukuh, untuk berdaya menahan tersebarnya wabak pensekularan yang ditiup angin ributnya ke merata dunia, dan untuk berani menjelmakan perubahan-perubahan yang wajib dilakukan dalam pemikiran kita yang masih terumbang-ambing dalam gelora keraguan diri. Nilai-nilai pensekularan serta pelbagai peristiwa yang berikut darinya, yang dahulu telah saya ramalkan akan berlaku di Dunia Islam, kini sudah mulai mengembang dengan derasnya disebabkan kehampaan faham dan kelalaian Kaum Muslimin akibat kejahilan akan sifat sebenar serta urutan-urutan selanjutnya peri erti pensekularan sebagai suatu rencana falsafah moden dan pascamoden. Rencana falsafah moden dan pascamoden yang saya maksudkan menganjurkan suatu pandangan mengenai hakikat dan kebenaran yang menayangkan suatu pandangan alam tertentu.

Agama, dalam erti yang kita maksudkan, tiada menentang pengosongan alam tabii dari sebarang ma’na ruhaniah sekiranya pengosongan tersebut bermaksud pada peyingkiran dari kefahaman kita segala pandangan alam yang dipadati dengan dewa-dewi mitos dan kesaktiannya, alam yang dicitakan oleh khayalan etnik yang menjelmakan keajaiban tahyul. Kerana sesungguhnya alam tabii tetap mengandung ma’na ruhani tanpa mitos dan keajaiban tahyul sekiranya ia dipandang sebagai kenyataan suatu kekudusan yang merupakan pelbagai hakikat dalam citaan dan kesedaran Pencipta yang urutan-urutannya membekas nyata di alam indera dan pengalaman inderawi. Alam tabii, dari pihak dirinya sendiri, bukan sesuatu yang harus dipuja sebagai sembahan mengandung sifat ketuhanan; akan tetapi bagaimanapun ia adalah suatu tanda, lambang dan simbol yang menyatakan Penciptanya Tuhan Sarwa Alam. Sesungguhnya, dalam erti yang kita maksudkan, seluruh alam tabii, bukan sekadar suatu phon atau batu, mengishtiharkan kehadiran yang kudus kepada mereka yang melihat hakikat di sebalik kenyataan yang terpamir di hadapannya. Agama hanya menentang pengosongan alam tabii dari sebarang kekudusan sekiranya ia berma’na menghapuskan segala keruhanian dari pengertian kita terhadap alam tabii, dan membataskan dayakuasa pengetahuan kita pada cara dan gaya kaedahh sains belaka seperti yang dianjurkan oleh falsafah dan sains sekular.

Tuhan yang Mahaesa bukan suatu mitos, suatu gambaran yang dicitakan, suatu simbol yang senantiasa berubah dalam akal fikri mengikut perubahan masa. Dia adalah Hakikat semata-mata. Iman mengandung unsur ilmi yang memahamkan tentang kebenaran pada akal insani;  dan salah satu titik perbezaan antara agama dan falsafah dan sains sekular ialah cara dan kaedah kita memahami erti sumber dan kaedah ilmu.

Falsafah moden telah mengambil peranan pentafsir sains, dan menyusunaturkan pelbagai pendapat yang dihasilkan oleh sains tabii dan sains sosial sebagai suatu pandangan alam. Pentafsiran itu pula, mengikut gilirannya, bergantung pada arah yang akan diambil oleh sains dalam kajiannya terhadap alam tabii. Maka pentafsiran tentang kenyataan-kenyataan serta kesimpulan-kesimpulan am sains, dan arah yang dituju oleh sains mengikut garis-garis yang ditunjukkan oleh pentafsiran itulah yang mesti dikaji dengan teliti dan dinilai kesahihannya, sebab dia mengemukakan kepada kita kini permasalahan paling mendalam mempengaruhi aliran sejarah keagamaan dan pemikiran kita. Penilaian kita tentunya memestikan tinjauan tajam serta penyelidikan memerinci terhadap cara dan kaedah ilmiah sains moden; konsep-konsep, praandaian-praandaian, dan simbol-simbolnya; segi-segi empirikal dan rasionalnya, segi-segi yang mempengaruhi nilaian dan akhlak; pentafsirannya mengenai perkara asal-usul; teorinya mengenai ilmu; praandaian-praandaiannya tentang kewujudan alam luaran, tentang kesamaan resmi alam tabii, dan keupayaan akal fikri memahami gaya berlakunya rangkaian perubahan padanya; teorinya mengenai alam semesta; klasifikasinya terhadap ilmu-ilmu; batasan-batasannya serta saling berkaitannya dengan ilmu-ilmu satu sama lain; dan keberkaitannya dengan perkara sosial.

Sains masani telah timbul dan berkembang dari falsafah yang sedari awal-mulanya mengikrarkan kemenjadian segala benda dari satu sama lain. Tiap yang mawjud merupakan suatu keberlakuan berangkai, suatu perkembangan atau evolusi yang bermula daripada apa yang sudah sedia terpendam dalam kesemulajadian yang tiada awal-akhirnya. Alam ini, dipandang dari sudut tinjauan ini, adalah suatu yang kadim berdiri dengan sendiri, bergantung pada sistemnya sendiri dan berevolusi mengikut undang-undangnya sendiri. Penafian hakikat serta wujud Tuhan yang Mahaesa sudah sedia tersirat dalam falsafah ini. Cara dan kaedah ilmiah yang dianutinya dan dianggap utama adalah rasionalisme falsafi, yang mengutamakan dan bergantung pada akal fikri semata-mata tanpa bantuan dari pengalaman indera jasmani, rasionalisme sekular, yang sambil menerima akal fikri namun lebih mengutamakan kenyataa bersumberkan pengalaman indera jasmani, dan menafikan sahnya kenyataan yang datang dari ilham dan dari yang berwibawa serta menolak Wahyu dan agama sebagai sumber ilmu sejati; dan empirikisme falsafi atau empirikisme mantiki, yang mendasarkan semua ilmu pada fakta-fakta yang boleh diperhatikan oleh pancaindera pada pelbagai kesimpula rekaan ilmu mantik dan analisa bahasa. Pandangan hakikat yang terlihat dari sudut tinjauan kedua faham rasionalisme dan empirikisme ini berasas pada landasan yang membataskan hakikat hanya pada alam tabii, yang dianggap sebagai satu-satunya peringkat kebenaran hakiki. Pembatasan demikian itu berikut dari pengurangan kuasa dan upaya ilmi dan fikri hanya dapat bertindak dalam gelanggang hakikat jisim dan jirim. Dalam sistem ini, ilmu hanya sah apabila ia berkenaan dengan kebiasaaan peraturan segala yang berlaku dan keberkaitannya satu sama lain. Dan tujuan penyelidikan dalam menuntut ilmu ialah bagi memeri serta menerang dan mensistemkan apa yang berlaku dalam alam tabii, ya’ni jumlah segala benda dan keadaan yang berlaku dalam ruang dan masa. Alam tabii diperikan semata-mata sebagai keadaan biasa diperikan dengan menggunakan istilah-istilah rasional yang menyingkirkan erti sifat keruhanian yang tersirat dalamnya, atau pentafsiran simbolis terhadapnya, sehingga asal-mula dan hakikatnya hanya bergantung pada kuasa-kuasa tabii belaka.

Rasionalisme, kedua-duanya yang falsafi dan yang sekular, dan empirikisme cenderung ke arah menafikan kewibawaan ilmiah dan ilham atau intuisi sebagai salah suatu sumber dan kaedah ilmu. Yang mereka nafikan itu bukan ada terdapatnya kewibawaan dan intuisi, akan tetapi ini tiada berma’na bahawa oleh kerana itu kewibawaan dan intuisi harus dikurangkan luasan serta rangkuman ertinya pada luasan dan rangkuman akal fikri dan pengalaman jasmani. Sekiranya diterima bahawa di peringkat biasa kesedaran insan sekalipun, ada terdapat daya akal dan pengalaman yang berperingkat-peringkat dan yang batasannya masing-masing dikenali serta diakui; maka tiada sebab untuk menolak penerimaan bahawa ada terdapat peringkat-peringkat yang lebih luhur dalam kesedaran dan pengalaman insan yang melampaui kesedaran dan pengalaman biasa, dan yang dalamnya terdapat peringkat-peringkat pengenalan ilmi, akali dan ruhani, dan pengalaman yang meluhuri daya indera jasmani, yang batas-batasnya hanya diketahui oleh Tuhan yang Mahaesa.

Mengenai ilham ya’ni intuisi pula, kebanyakan pemikir rasionalis, sekularis dan empirikis serta para ahli psikologis telah mengurangkan ertinya kepada perolehan pengalaman biasa, iaitu kepada pemerhatian inderawi dan kesimpulan-kesimpulan mantiki yang telah lama terperam difikir-renungkan dalam akal fikri dan yang ma’nanya kemudian tiba-tiba menjadi ketahuan, atau kepada keadaan inderawi dan emosi yang perasaannya semakin meningkat sehingga tiba-tiba keluar menjadi ketahuan. Akan tetapi anggapan mereka ini adalah dugaan belaka, kerana tiadapat bukti bahawa pengetahuan yang tiba-tiba mendatang dalam kefahaman itu datangnya dari pengalaman inderawi. Lagi pula penafian mereka tentang adanya hujahnya mengenai intuisi, itupun bersifat dugaan belaka.

Oleh kerana insan jua yang menanggap dengan indera jasmani serta mengkonsepsikan alam benda dan kejadian-kejadian yang berlaku di luar dirinya, maka pengkajian alam tabii termasuklah juga penelitian tentang diri insan itu sendiri. Akan tetapi pengkajian tentang insan, tentang akal fikri, dan tentang dirinya pun diterbataskan pada kaedah-kaedah dan prinsip ilmu-ilmu baharu seperti psikologi, biologi dan antropologi, yang menganggap insan itu hanya sebagai suatu perkembangan suku-jenis haiwan yang lebih luhur martabatnya dalam peringkat hayawaniah, dan yang merupakan tiada lain dari lanjutan-lanjutan kaedah dan prinsip membataskan akal dan pengalaman kepada peringkat jismi belaka. Lagi pula, untuk mentahkikkan segala hipotesis dan teori sains, menurut mereka, memerlukan kecocokan dengan fakta-fakta yang dapat diperhatikan. Bagaimanapun, oleh kerana hipotesis-hipotesis dan teori-teori yang bercanggahan satu sama lain pun masih tetap boleh cocok dengan fakta yang diperhatikan, dan oleh kerana kesukaan untuk memilih yang satu berlawan dengan yang lain itu tiadapat dipastikan oleh suatu ukuran kebenaran yang objektif – ini kerana kebenaran dimestikan harus cocok dengan fakta -  maka pemilihan itu ditentukan hanya oleh pertimbangan-pertimbangan yang bergantung pada adat kebiasaan umum. Maka bergantungnya pada adat kebiasaan umum ini telah menimbulkan kecenderungan menganggap mayarakat, dan bukan orang persendirian, sebagai ukuran terakhir, sebagai yang benar dan yang berwibawa. Pengabdian pada adat kebiasaan ini telah menyusutkan semua bentuk institusi insani sebagai ciptaan “akal sekumpul” yang konon dimiliki oleh masyarakat. Ilmu sendiri, dan juga bahasa insani sekalipun, tiada lain melainkan alat, serta penjelmaan hasil akal sekumpul dewa yang tiadapat diperkatakan yang digelar Masyarakat.

Akhirnya,  syak telah disanjung sebagai suatu kaedah epistermologi yang dengannya golongan rasionalis dan sekularis percaya bahwa mereka boleh sampai kepada kebenaran. Akan tetapi tiada bukti bahawa penyampaian kepada kebenaran itu datangnya dari syak, dan bukan dari yang lain dari syak. Syak adalah keadaan hati yang teragak-agak tiada menentu antara dua perkara yang bertentangan dan yang hati itu tiada memberat menyebelahi mana-mana satu antaranya kedua; ia adalah suatu keadaan hati berdiam resah di tengah-tengah dua perkara bertentangan tanpa cenderung ke arah yang satu atau yang lain. Sekiranya hati cenderung ke arah ayang satu sedangkan tiada jua ia menolak yang lain, maka ia telah tiba pada makam yakin. Penolakan yang lain oleh hati itu bukan disebabkan oleh syak akan kebenarannya, akan tetapi ia merupakan pengenalan yang pasti tentang kesilapan dan kepalsuannya. Inilah hidayah. Syak, walaupun berlaku menetap, atau hanya untuk sementara, menuju ke arah salah satu pendiririan merupakan dugaan atau keadaan tiada yakin, dan tiada sekali-kali ia menuju ke arah kebenaran – “dan sia-sia dugaan dapat mengatasi kebenaran.” (al-Qur’ãn, 10 : 36).

Berdasarkan pada pendirian yang telah didirikan teguh oleh tradisi falsafah dan sains kita sebagai suatu sistem metafisika yang bersepadu lagi bercocokan tinjauan ma’nawinya, kita akui memang ada terdapat banyak persamaan antara pendirian kita dengan pendirian falsafah dan sains moden sezaman mengenai sumber serta kaedah ilmu; kesatuan cara rasional dan empirikal untuk mencapai ilmu; gabungan faham realisme, idealisme, dan pragmatisme sebagai dasar ilmi bagi suatu falsafah sains; falsafah dan sains berkelakuan berangkai. Namun persamaan ini, yang seolah-olah jelas kelihatan, hanya mengenai wajah-wajah luaran, dan tiada menghapuskan perbezaan mendalam yang timbul dari beberapa perbezaan penting dalam pandangan alam dan kepercayaan kita tentang sifat terakhir Hakikat. Pengikraran kita terhadap Tanzil sebagai sumber sejati mengenai ilmu tentang hakikat dan kebenaran terakhir perihal ciptaanraya an Penciptannya, memberikan kita suatu dasar bagi mendirikan rangka metafisika yang dalamnya boleh sibuat huraian meneliti tentang falsafah sains kita sebagai suatu sistem yang bersepadu, yang memerikan hakikat dan kebenaran dengan cara yang tiada terbuka bagi cara-cara kaedah sekular rasionalisme falsafi dan empirikisme falsafi yang dianuti falsafah dan sains moden.

Menjadi Muslim Moden: Apakah Makna Disebalik Istilah Ini?

Mungkin saudara saudari sekalian pernah terlintas istilah “Muslim Moden” atau slogan “Menjadi Muslim Moden.” Ia seakan-akan telah menjadi mentera sesetengah bomoh-bomoh modenisasi yang membayangkan seorang Muslim yang progresif, maju dan berdaya saing. Saya tersenyum sinis dengan kenyataan ini; progresif, maju, berdaya saing! Tiga istilah yang begitu indah bila digabungkan bersama bukan? Teringat pula iklan Perillis di kaca televisyen sewaktu saya di bangku sekolah dahulu; gaya, mutu, keunggulan!

Namun apakah sebenarnya makna disebalik istilah ‘Muslim Moden’ ini? Sejauh manakah sesuainya istilah ini? Menurut Al-Attas, bahasa merupakan alat fikri. Justeru, istilah-istilah yang digunakan menggambarkan pemahaman seseorang terhadap sesuatu perkara. Seyugianya, apakah yang boleh kita fahami dari istilah ‘moden’ yang digabungkan kepada ‘Muslim’ ataupun ‘manusia’ di dalam istilah ‘manusia moden’?

Dari karya Al-Attas yang berjudul ‘Islam and Secularism’ dan ‘Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam’, saya boleh rumuskan istilah ‘moden’ ini bersumberkan tiga perkara yang penting dalam peradaban Barat. Yang pertama ialah pandangan Barat tentang sejarah peradaban manusia. Yang kedua ialah pandangan Barat terhadap hakikat insan. Yang ketiga ialah pandangan Barat terhadap konsep masa. Di dalam artikel yang singkat ini, saya hanya akan menghuraikan perkara yang pertama. Insya-Allah pada masa yang lain saya akan huraikan perkara yang kedua dan yang ketiga.

Menurut sarjana-sarjana Barat, kecuali mereka yang berpegang pada mazhab pascamodenisme, secara amnya sejarah peradaban manusia itu boleh diklasifikasikan kepada empat fasa: the Classical period, the Dark Ages, the Enlightenment period dan selanjutnya the Modern period. Secara ringkas, the Classical Period merujuk kepada peradaban Yunani purba dengan kecanggihan falsafah mereka, yang bertitik tolak daripada dua mazhab pemikiran yang paling berpengaruh dalam peradaban Barat yakni Aristu (Aristotle) dan Aflatun (Plato). Seterusnya, the Dark Ages, sebagaimana yang dapat kita fahami dari istilah ‘dark’ ataupun gelap, merujuk kepada kegelapan yang dilalui masyarakat Barat akibat penindasan gereja dalam arena sosio-politik dan ekonomi dan pemikiran jumud yang berasaskan pemahaman paderi-paderi mereka terhadap kitab Bible.  Zaman itu telah diketahui secara masyhurnya sikap negatif paderi-paderi terhadap penemuan-penemuan empirikal yang dikhuatirnya akan melemahkan keyakinan masyarakat terhadap agama Kristien dan justeru kepada kepimpinan gereja. Dengan demikian, zaman itu disifatkan sebagai zaman kegelapan, disebabkan kegelapan yang dibawa agama Kristien yang menindas cahaya yang dibawa ‘agama’ sains dan falsafah. Apabila masyarakat Barat berjaya membebaskan diri mereka dari belenggu agama dan wahyu, mereka menyifatkan perkara ini sebagai suatu pencerahan, kerana mereka akhirnya dapat dicerahkan oleh cahaya sains dan falsafah. Dengan proses inilah maka istilah sekular, sekularisme dan sekularisasi dilahirkan untuk menggambarkan dengan tepat kehampaan masyarakat Barat secara amnya terhadap agama. Ini adalah kerana makna sekular sebenarnya merujuk kepada orang awam yang bersifat duniawi, yang berjaya mengatasi paderi-paderi suci yang bersifat ukhrawi.

Dengan itu, kita jelas dapat gambarkan sikap masyarakat Barat secara amnya terhadap agama, yang dilihat sebagai punca kejahilan dan penindasan. Zaman Enlightenment ataupun Pencerahan ini juga disebuat sebagai ‘Rennaisance’, yang bermaksud ‘dilahirkan semula’. Apa yang dimaksudkan disini ialah perubahan paradigma masyarakat Barat dari wahyu dan agama kepada akal dan falsafah. Justeru mereka seolah-olah ‘dilahirkan semula’, kerana berjaya mengingatkan kembali akan ‘asal’ mereka yakni pemikiran dan kebenaran yang berasaskan falsafah. Justeru mereka mengemaskinikan ajaran Aristu dan Aflatun ini menjadi dua mazhab pemikiran besar yang saling bertengkaran; mazhab Rasionalisme dan mazhab Empirikalisme. Rasionalisme membayangkan bahawa kebenaran itu hanya dapat dicapai oleh akal fikiran manakala Empirikalisme itu berpendapat bahawa kebenaran itu hanya dapat dicapai oleh penemuan yang dapat digarapi pancaindera. Meskipun mempunyai perbezaan yang ketara, kedua-dua mazhab ini secara amnya mempunyai sikap yang sama terhadap agama, yakni agama itu harus dibuang sahaja dari kamus pemikiran orang Barat. Beberapa abad kemudian, mazhab Rasionalisme ini berjaya dikalahkan oleh mazhab Empirikalisme, sehingga lahirnya apa yang kita fahamkan sebagai sains moden dan justeru zaman moden.

Inilah pengalaman yang dilalui orang Barat. Tetapi adakah pengalaman yang sama dilalui oleh orang Muslim? Apakah pandangan Muslim terhadap sejarah peradaban manusia? Bolehkah kita klasifikasikan sejarah Islam kepada empat fasa yang dilalui orang Barat? Adakah kita pernah lalui kesemua itu? Adakah kebenaran dan kemajuan itu hanya dapat dicapai dengan sains moden? Apakah pandangan Islam terhadap kebenaran dan terhadap sains moden? Atau lebih penting lagi, apakah pandangan Islam terhadap agama?

Mungkin saya ini bersikap agak melampau dalam melontarkan terlalu banyak persoalan untuk sang pembaca. Maafkan saya. Tetapi inilah persoalan-persoalan yang bagi saya begitu penting untuk menyelesaikan masalah pemikiran ummat. Inilah ‘peperangan’ yang yang umat Islam sebenarnya harus melibatkan diri. Bukan kepada polemik-polemik yang basi dan melemahkan perpaduan. Juga bukan kepada perdebatan mengenai butir-butir yang bersifat trivial, contohnya, mengenai maulid, tahlil, menyimpan janggut dan sebagainya.

Masyarakat Barat jelas tidak mempunyai monopoli atas kebenaran dan pemahaman terhadap istilah-istilah tertentu, terutama sekali terhadap makna progresif, maju dan berdaya saing!

Mungkin persoalan-persoalan besar ini dapat kita fikirkan bersama insya-Allah.

The Muslim Dilemma Part 1

The Muslim Dilemma Part 1

Our present general dilemma is caused by:

1. 1. 1.Confusion and error in knowledge, creating the condition for:

2. 2. 2. The loss of adab within the Community. Point no. 1 and no. 2 then leads to:

3. 3. 3. The rise of leaders who are not qualified for valid leadership of the Muslim Community, who do not possess the high moral, intellectual and spiritual standards required for Islamic leadership, who perpetuate the confusion and error in knowledge mentioned above and ensure the continued control of the affairs of the Community by leaders like them who dominate in all fields.

Of adab and knowledge

Knowledge must be approached reverently and in humility, and it cannot be possessed simply as if it were available to everyone irrespective of intention and purpose and capacity. Where knowledge of Islam and the Islamic worldview is concerned, it is based on authority. Since Islam is already established in perfection from the very beginning, requiring no further developmental change nor evolution towards perfection, we say again that adequate knowledge about Islam is always possible for all Muslims. There can be no relativism in the historical interpretation of Islam, so that knowledge about is either right or wrong, or true or false, where wrong and false means contradiction with the already established and clear truth, and right and true means conformity with it (already established and clear truth). Confusion about such truth means simply ignorance of it, and this is due not to any inherent vagueness or ambiguity on the part of the truth.

The interpretation and clarification of knowledge about Islam and the Islamic worldview is accomplished by authority, and legitimate authority recognizes and acknowledges a hierarchy of authorities culminating in the Holy Prophet, upon Whom be Peace! It is incumbent upon us to have a proper attitude towards legitimate authority, and that is reverence, love, respect, humility and intelligent trust can only be realized in one when one recognizes and acknowledges the fact that there is a hierarchy in the human order and in authority within that hierarchy in point of intelligence, spiritual knowledge and virtue.

In respect of the human order in society, we do not in the least mean by ‘hierarchy’ that semblance of it wherin oppression and exploitation and domination are legitimized as if they were an established principle ordained by God. Any kind of “hierarchy” and “order” is not necessarily legitimate, for such an order is not order at all- it is disorder; and adab is not resignation to disorder as that would be contrary to justice. Disorder is the manifestation of the occurrence of injustice. The fact that hierarchical disorders have prevailed in human society does not mean that hierarchy in the human order is not valid, for there is, in point of fact, legitimate hierarchy in the order of creation, and this is Divine Order pervading all Creation and manifesting the occurrence of justice. God is the Just, and he fashions and deploys all Creation in justice. In order that mankind generally might recognize and acknowledge the just order, He has bestowed upon His Prophets, Messengers and men of piety and spiritual discernment the wisdom and knowledge of it so that they in turn might convey it to mankind who ought to conform with it as individual and as society.

And this conformity with that order is the occurrence of adab; the resulting condition of that conformity is justice.

(Islam and Secularism pg 100-102)

The Worldview of Islam: An Introduction

1. Defining the Islamic Worldview
From the perspective of Islam, a 'worldview' is not merely the mind's view of the physical world and of man's historical, social, political, and cultural involvement in it. The worldview of Islam is not based upon philosophical speculation formulated mainly from observation of the data sensible experience, of what is visible to the eye; nor it is restricted to the world of sensible experience, the world of created things. Islam does not concede to the dichotomy of the sacred and the profane; the worldview of Islam encompasses both al-dunya and al-akhirah, in which the dunya-aspect must be related in profound and inseparable way to the akhirah-aspect, in which the akhirah-aspect has the ultimate and final significance. The dunya-aspect is seen as preparation for the akhirah-aspect without thereby implying any attitude of neglect or being unmindful of the dunya-aspect. What is meant by 'worldview' according to the perspective of Islam, is then the vision of reality and truth that appears before the mind's eye revealing what existence is all about; for it is the world of experience in its totality that Islam is projecting.
(Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam [Kuala Lumpur: ISTAC, 1995],1)

2. The Character of Islamic Worldview
The Islamic vision of reality and truth, which is metaphysical survey of the visible as well as the invisible worlds, including the perspective if life as a whole, is not a worldview that is formed merely by gathering together of various cultural objects, values, and phenomena into artificial coherence. Nor is it one that is formed gradually through a historical and development process a philosophical speculation and scientific discovery, which must of necessity be left vague and open-ended for future change and alteration in line with paradigms that change in correspondence with changing circumstances. It is not a worldview that undergoes a dialectical process of transformation repeated through the ages, from thesis to antitheses then synthesis, with elements of each of these stages in the process being assimilated into the other, such as a worldview based upon a system of thought that was originally god-centered, and is now world-centered and perhaps shifting again to form a new thesis in the dialectical process. Such a worldview changes in line with ideological ages and characterized by a predominance of the influence of particular and opposing systems of thought advocating different interpretations of worldview and value systems like that which have occurred and will continue to occur in the history of cultural, religious and intellectual tradition of the West. There have not been in the history of the cultural, religious, and intellectual tradition of Islam distinct ages characterized by a preponderance of a system of thought based upon materialism or idealism, supported by attendant methodological approaches and positions such as empiricism, rationalism, realism, nominalism, pragmatism,positivismm, logical positivism, and criticism, oscillating between centuries and emerging one after another right down to our time. The representatives of Islamic thought-theologians, philosophers, metaphysicians- have all and individually applied various methods in their investigations without preponderating on any one particular method. They combined in their investigations, and at the same time in their persons, the empirical and the rational, the deductive and the inductive methods and affirmed no dichotomy between the subjective and the objective, so that they all affected what I would call the tawhid method of knowledge. Nor have there been in Islam historical periods that can be characterized as 'classical,' then 'medieval,' then 'modern'; and now purportedly shifting again to 'post-modern'; nor critical events between the medieval and the modern experienced as a 'renaissance' and an 'enlightenment.' Proponents of shifts in systems of thought involving changes in the fundamental elements of the worldview and value system may say that all forms of cultures must experience such shifts; otherwise in the process of interaction with changing circumstances they exhaust themselves and become uncreative and petrified. But this is true only in the experience and consciousness of civilizations whose system of thought and value have been derived from cultural and philosophical elements aided by the science of their times. Islam is not a form of culture, and its system of value derived from it are not merely derived from cultural and philosophical elements aided by science, but one whose original source is Revelation, confirmed by religion, and affirmed by intellectual and intuitive principles. Islam ascribes to itself the truth of being a truly revealed religion, perfected from the very beginning, requiring no historical explanation and evaluation in terms of the place it occupied and the role it played within a process of development. All the essentials of the religion: the name, the faith and practice, the rituals, and the creed and system of belief were given by Revelation an interpreted and demonstrated by the Prophet in his words and model actions, not from cultural tradition which necessarily must flow in the stream of historicism. The religion of Islam was conscious of its own identity from the time of revelation. When it appeared on the stage of world history Islam was already 'mature,' needing no process of 'growing up' to maturity. Revealed religion can only be that which knows itself from the very beginning; and that self-knowledge comes from the Revelation itself, not from history. The so-called 'development' in the religious traditions of mankind cannot be applied to Islam, for what is assumed to be a developmental process is, in the case of Islam, only a process of interpretation and elaboration, which must, of necessity, occur in alternating generations of believers of different nations, and which refer back to the unchanging Source.
(Prolegomena, 2-4)

3. The Fundamental Elements of the Islamic Worldview
The worldview of Islam is characterized by an authenticity and finality that points to what is ultimate, and it projects a view of reality and truth that encompasses existence and life altogether in total perspective whose fundamental elements are permanently established. These are, to mention the most salient ones, the nature of God; of Revelation (i.e. the Qur'an); of His creation; of man and the psychology of the human soul: of knowledge; of religion; of freedom; of values and virtues; of happiness- all of which, together with the key terms and concepts that they unfold, have profound bearing upon our ideas about change, development, and progress. These fundamental elements act as integrating principles that place all our system of meaning and standards of life and values in coherent order as a unified system forming the worldview and the supreme principle of true reality that is articulated by these fundamental elements is focused on knowledge of the nature of God as revealed in the Qur'an.
(Prolegomena, 4-5)

a. The Nature of God
b. The Nature of Revelation- The Qur'an
c. The Nature of Revealed Religion- Islam
d. The Nature of the World (dunya)
e. The Nature of Man (insan)
f. The Nature of Knowledge ('ilm)
g. The Nature of Adab
h. The Nature of Happiness (sa'adah)
i. The True Meaning of Change, Development, and Progress
j. Concluding Remarks



1) A worldview is what the mind sees if it has eyes.
Imagine having ‘eyes’ on the mind. What would it see?

If the mind has eyes then it would see what it considers to be true and what it considers to be real. Or in other words, what really exists out there.

Let’s try this out. Take a look at a tree outside your window. What do you think your mind would see?

If you are just saying: “This is a tree. It has roots, a trunk, and branches that extends out into the sky”, then there is something wrong with your mind. It is because if you are a Muslim, your mind should not be seeing a tree as just a tree in its physical form. A tree does not exist on its own-; its existence owes to Allah. A tree is therefore not just a tree in its physical form; a tree is a sign of Allah’s Existence and Omnipotence!

Then you may ask yourself: Why did you see the tree as only a tree? That’s because you have restricted your mind’s vision to the world of sensible experience. This would mean that something exists only if it can be seen, heard and experienced by your other senses; it also means that something is true and real only if it is in conformity with what you have perceived with your senses. But this is not the way your mind’s eye should see if you are a Muslim who has understood Islam in its totality.

The Muslim mind has its own unique way of looking at things. As such, it has its own vision of what is true, and what is real, and what really exists out there.

2) Seeing from a Western mind
Because of our interactions with the dominant Western world and our Western-influenced education, we begin to confuse ourselves by seeing in our minds what the Western man see in their minds. In the words of Prof Al-Attas himself:
“It is most significant to us that these problems are caused due to the introduction of Western ways of thinking and judging and believing emulated by some Muslim scholars and intellectuals who have been unduly influenced by the West and overawed by its scientific and technological achievements.” (Islam and Secularism, pg 13)
If we examine Western civilization history, which went through different eras, notably the rejection of the Christian religion, we would be able to understand better what the Western man see in their minds and their set of criteria underlining their perception of what is true, what is real, and what exists out there. And it is also important to point out that Islam has different experiences from that experienced by the Western man.
Hence, our task now is to examine how a Muslim should think, judge and believe and at the same time isolating those non-Islamic elements which has tampered the vision of our minds, mainly, the secular Western worldview.

3) The worldview of Islam encompasses of both this world and the Hereafter
Opposed to the secular man’s vision of the world which sees only the physical sensible world as one that is true and real and that the Hereafter are fantasies or dreams of primitive man because it cannot be proven by the five senses, a Muslim should see that both this world and the Hereafter are both true and real. In fact, the Muslim mind should see this physical world as a temporary place of rest in preparation for the everlasting Hereafter. This, however, does not imply that this world should be neglected or shunned, or that we should just stop working and concentrate on performing worship; it only means we should not be too attached to this physical world and be aware that our final destination lies in the Hereafter.

4) The worldview of Islam rejects dualism
Opposed to the secular man’s way of seeing and knowing things, which has the habit of classifying things as opposites that are in conflict with one another (dualism), and then subsequently compromising, by adopting elements from both sides, the worldview of Islam is not formed out of this dialectical process. In fact, Muslims in the past, despite their classification of things, did not treat them as opposites of one another. They have been able to successfully combine the different methods of achieving knowledge of things.
In contrast, in the West there was once a time when the Western world believed that something is true and real only if it corresponds to facts that can be sensed by our sensory perceptions (empiricism). At the same time, there were those who believed that something is true and real only if it can be logically and rationally demonstrated by the mind (rationalism). There were conflicts between the two, each believing in their own criteria of truth and reality. Eventually they decided to harmonise their thoughts into an artificial coherence having elements of both sides as demonstrated in modern and post-modern thought (logical positivism). As such, the secular worldview is a product of the historical and developmental processes experienced by the West.

This also means that the criteria of what is true and what is real will always continue to change and evolve according to what suits them best at that point of time. This search for a final identity will continue until the end of time.

5) The worldview of Islam transcends time
Opposed to the evolutionary processes in Western thought, Islam is already perfect, matured and modern at the time of its revelation, always relevant for all ages. It did not go through historical periods, for instance, from the Dark Age to the Renaissance and then to the Modern era like the West did. This is because the worldview of Islam does not borrow its elements from culture, philosophy and science; its elements are based on Revelation which is final in nature. Because Islam already knows of its identity from the very beginning, this means that there is no need for Islam to develop and change as how the West is. In fact, change and development in Islam is only a process of understanding the message of the Qur’an and the Sunnah better.

Cancellation of "Understanding Pseudo-Salafism: A Critical Perspective" by Dr Khalif Muammar

Assalamu'alaikum WR. WB.

Dearest readers,

It is with sadness and regret to inform you that the discussion "Understanding Pseudo-Salafism: A Critical Perspective" by Dr Khalif Muammar on 20th Feb 2010 has been cancelled due licensing problems similar to that experienced by the Madrasah Wak Tanjong Seminar,

We at the Suffah Study Circle would like to apologize for the inconvenience caused and we hope that you would continue to give us your support for other programmes organized by us. This would include our upcoming discussion on "The Introduction to the Worldview of Islam" by Dr Farid Shahran on the 27th of Feb 2010.

Again, we sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused.

Wassalam
Suffah Study Circle

The Reduction of Faith to define 'Underclass'

Dr Yaacob Ibrahim mentioned in the news recently about the emergence of underclass Malay/Muslim group from the main community, citing "This is not Malay culture, this is a subculture". (CNA,04 January 2010, Analysis: National approach needed for underclass issue).

The question is: Is it true that the emergence of such underclass from the mainstream community a recent introduction, or a cause of accrual exploitation of the media, or is it a cause factor of the social paradigm shift in a post modern era?

During the CLF/TMSN meeting with various Malay Muslim undergraduates recently, many of us argued and brought across factors after factors that maybe the social indicators to redefine the terminology 'underclass' in our context. However, much to my dismay, few would bring across a much simpler tool to find the pin among the hay.

There were many factors most sociologists would use to redefine such a heavy term as 'underclass'. Some say it is the result of the lack of the social, cultural and economical capital of the self. Others used the term 'pathological demoralization' of the mind, or also known as the 'last mile barrier'- the psychological resistance that puts in an absence of any effect if given empowerment, resources, capitals, benefits etc. Some might be given as much as a thousand dollars, but still fail to bring itself out of the problem due to internal resistance to all forms of given welfare.

Some also might argue that 'underclass' can be seen as an Alternative Value System. It is whereby the mind chooses its state of comfort, in a way that even success might be seen as 'drinking a dozen of Heineken bottles at one go' as compared to earning large sums of money. The yardstick of success is hence viewed differently.

In addition, some introduced the 'deconstruction of empowerment'' whereby the environment, social pressures and fast-paced modernization left them socially immobile- unable to keep up with the upper segment of the society, they tend to accept their fate and not having the determination to achieve. Others say they lack help from the MMOs (Malay Muslim Organisations) due to certain policy fine prints and the lack of information with regards to social welfare.

However, in my opinion, it is a mere loss of adab in the society. Referring to the transcripts of Prof Syed Naquib Al-Attas, "I said of that it is the loss of adab. Adab is a reflection of wisdom, because this comes from the knowledge of the Prophets. It is not something that you receive from universities or even from knowledge. Because sometimes people have knowledge but no adab. Adab, the way i understood it, it is acting in conformity with justice. Justice is THE final virtue, justice is the culmination of all virtues."

He further elaborated:

As said in the Qur'an:

"Verily Allah commands that you should render back the trusts to those whom they are due (amanah); and that when you judge between men, you judge with justice..."

(Surah An-Nisa': 58)

There are 4 terms in this verse that is important.

1) That the verse is a command ('amr). And when you talk about command you talk about law. Law can only take place when people realise the commands and prohibitions and submit to it.

2) The people of authority are not leaders in legitimate power, but people that are mentioned in the Qur'an as Ulul 'Ilm (those with knowledge), Ulul Absar (those with vision), Ulul Albab (those who are in thinking). This can also mean just governments too.

3) Wisdom, which is the knowledge that tells you of the proper places of everything. Those who are given wisdom include the Prophets and the philosophers. Unfortunately some of the philosophers do not realize that wisdom comes from Allah s.w.t, thinking that wisdom comes from their own minds.

Everything has its own proper place. Things are established in its proper places in accordance to haqq which is reality and truth. Wisdom is therefore the methods of how to deal with these things, to put them into their proper places.

4) Adab is conformity with the knowledge of the proper places of things. And when this is carried out, the condition that results from this is justice. Therefore justice is the condition in which things are in their proper places.

It is in such truth that I must mentioned that the loss of adab of our society itself has degraded our society from the light of Allah SWT. It is the reduction of faith, clearly seen in the meeting, that I would boldly comment that the term 'underclass' can also mean:

"People who has experience a loss of adab in conformity with the knowledge of the proper places of things, in which the reduction of faith, the disenchantment of nature and the lack of knowledge with wisdom in dealing with issues creates a stagnant, or perhaps, a dedevelopmentation of social excellance."

Sadly, it also means it includes me, and the many people who deemed themselves as intellects, for they show 'tendencies to reduce faith and spiritual aspects' in our efforts to study this issue.

The community must realise that the Malay community is built upon the transcended revelation of Islam. Stretching from the historical revivalism of the Islamisation of the Malay Archipelago from Hinduism and animalism, and the integration of Arabic language in Malay Language (as seen from words dunia, akhirat, ruh, doa, taqwa etc); it is steadfast, deep rooted, firm and strong, in our Malay culture and language. Thus, Islam is the way of life of the Malay World. It remains as our worldview.

In the Quran, I believe many would find verses that shows how Allah SWT torture those who do mungkar (bad actions) and rewards those who do makruf (good actions). It is perhaps, in this 'amar makruf, nahi mungkar' that could be included in the redefinition of the underclass. Hence, according to Islam, it is simply, 'those who do bad deeds, and do not do good deeds' (amar mungkar, nahi makruf).

Do we include spiritual perspectives to solve this issue, or do we use spiritual aspects as our magnum opus in our spectacle to study the issue, or we simply shrug the 'religious connotations' to do favours to the sociological aspects of research? Or we simply dwell in the pool of secularism and act as though we are Gods- in control of our own actions and thoughts?

I shall end this note with a quote from Rene Descartes, French Philosopher- "Cogito Ergo Sum" or ‘I think therefore I am’.

Wallahualam bisawwab.

Seeking Meaning: An Introduction to the Islamic Worldview

To register, pls RSVP at:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dEVxemNuU2Joano2YmNadERTc0VFMlE6MA

Insya-Allah, the video of the programme will be uploaded in due time.

Understanding Wahabbism: A Critical Perspective

To register, pls RSVP at:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dHV3eUo1aXgyc3BsdVRJNmF5T05MeHc6MA

Insya-Allah, a video of the programme will be posted here in due time.

Suffah Study Circle 5

Muhammad Saifulakhir

In the fifth meeting of Suffah, we discussed the issue of Christianity failing to Christianize Greek philosophy properly, allowing the process of secularization. Western Christianity is actually ‘patched up’ by different elements; it came under the sway of Roman influences, and gradually embraced Aristotelian philosophy and Worldview. One of the salient features of this worldview is the disenchantment of nature, making objects of nature into a mere “thing” of no sacred or symbolic meaning. This means that the study of nature is only restricted to natural laws and mechanisms.

We also grappled with the issue of a revealed religion. The revealed religion as we have understood it, is a religion that is revealed though His appointed messengers. Hence, other revealed religions according to the Western criterion, with exceptional of Islam, are not really revealed religion. It is because they have undergone certain fundamental changes in the hands of irresponsible men who try to “develop” or “evolve” the religion to suit the times.

Islam is a complete and perfect religion in its adequacy for mankind from the very beginning. It does not need to further “develop” or “evolve”. Islam, is always relevant, adequate, “modern or “new” and is always ahead of time because it transcends history.

Islam has already been made complete and perfect during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), who interpreted it in life and whose sacred law he patterned in his teaching, his thought and saying and model actions. His companion, questioned him urgently on every conceivable and actual problem of daily life and right conduct, thought and action and guidance that summarize the needs of mankind. His teachings are answers would suffice for mankind of all ages and generation to come.

Furthermore, when the Islamic world met Greek Philosophy, Islam was able to Islamize those ideas through the intellectual efforts of the Sufis and the Mutakallimun. Through deep research and contemplation, they were able to isolate elements in Greek Philosophy that were not in line with the Islamic Creed and accept those that were seen as beneficial to the faith. This development formed a new science known as Kalam or Speculative Theology.

There is no need to make every value in Islam subjective and open to interpretation to suit the spirit of the times; the religion of Islam has its own absolute vision of God, of the Universe, of Reality, of Man and etc.

In conclusion, Islam is different from Christianity. It does not have to go through the process of development. Islam, being the final revelation is complete and perfect; it does not come under the sway of any foreign influence and is always relevant from the very beginning and for the future.

Suffah Study Circle 4

Hasanul Arifin

Of Eurocentrism

As mentioned by Ibn Khaldun in his Mukaddimah, a civilization which considers itself superior with respect to another would dictate the ways in which man is supposed to think, believe, judge and act. This is often followed by the inferior civilization, whether consciously or unconsciously. Edward Said also wrote good responses towards Eurocentrism and Orientalism in his books. As mentioned by Prof Al-Attas, Western man is always inclined to regard his culture as man's cultural vanguard. Considering itself as the most 'advanced' it has appointed itself as the representative of the human race, telling others that they too would realize the experiences that they have gone through.

There is this story of a parrot in a pet shop, whose head was accidentely shaved bald due to the negligence of its owner. Because of this experience, every time a bald person passes by the shop, it would say "Your owner accidentely shaved you bald too, didn't he?"

This parrot is the Western man and its experiences with Christianity and its misapplication of Greek metaphysics. As Muslims, we reject the Western man's claim to truths and maintain that secularization is only unique to their experiences and we are not in need of it.

The Authorities of Christian Theology

Contemporary Christian theology and thought is largely based on the views of people who did not practise the religious life, who were skeptics, agnostics, atheists and doubters. These people are mainly secular philosophers, metaphysicians, scientists, paleontologists, anthropologists, sociologists, psychoanalysts, mathematicians and linguists.

An example would be the application of existentialism, which was originally formulated by agnostic Heidegger and subsequently the atheistic Sartre, which is then re-casted into the theistic Trinitarian mould by Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Marcel and Barth. A more extreme form of Christian theology is that which is propagated by Cupitt based on the atheistic Nietzsche. Because "God is Dead", it is thus necessary for Christians to reformulate their theology based on a more 'scientific' interpretation and even throw away the concept of God altogether. Metaphysics in religion to them is not important and what's most important is the moral teachings, hence the creation of a humanistic version of Christianity. Unfortunately, this seems to be echoed by some Muslims these days.

The Authorities of Islamic Theology

In Islam, knowledge about religion and religious experience is not obtained by purely rational speculation and reflection alone. Islamic metaphysics is firmly based on knowledge gained from practical and sincere devotion to Islam; true submission to the Being according to the Revealed Law. This is Tasawwuf or Sufism, where God reveals His Secrets to those whom He Trusts.

In Islam, we acknowledge 2 types of knowledge. The first is analagous to studying a person from the outside; observing from afar how he acts and behaves. The second is analagous to knowing the person personally, and he reveals to us his concerns and secrets as a friend or lover. Therefore knowledge on Islamic metaphysics is known not only through reason and reflection, but to sincere devotion and friendship with Allah. The masters of this knowledge are the Awliya' or Friends of Allah.

As mentioned by Al-Ghazali, the metaphysics of Islam is made known by the rational speculations of the Mutakallimun grounded in Revelation, as well as the spiritual visions of the People of Reality or the Sufis.

Religion according to the West

When the secular West speaks of religion, they usually define it as a part of culture and traditions; a system of beliefs, practices and values that are products out of history and confrontation of man and nature. Religion are products of historical evolutions and processes of development.

The Revealed Religion is Al-Islam

As Muslims, we believe that Christianity is originally based on religion, but is not a revealed religion in the sense that Islam is. Both the Qur'an and sources arising within Christianity itself cast doubt on the reliability and authenticity of the reporting, interpretation and conceptualization of the Gospel.

We believe that the Prophet Jesus was sent by God and given the Al-Injil to correct the deviations of the Children of Israel and to convey Glad Tidings of the coming of the Universal Religion (Islam) that would be established by the Great Teacher whose name is given as Ahmad (Muhammad).

Prophet Jesus was not charged with establishing a new religion called Christianity as claimed by other disciples and apostles such as Paul.

Even the name "Christianity" was given to them by their Roman enemies. Therefore it cannot be called a revealed religion because it does not even have an identity to begin with; its identity was developed historically (unlike Islam).

The fact that it had to assimilate Roman Laws (because it had no Revealed Law) and that it had to borrow from Graeco-Roman thought to formulate its own metaphysics demonstrates that it was created by man who" gradually developed its system of rituals by assimilation from other cultures and traditions as well as originating its own fabrications."

Our discussions on their festivals (Christmas, Easter etc.), their icons (Santa Claus, Easter Bunny) demonstrate this as well.

Suffah Study Circle 3

Hasanul Arifin

Secularization has no roots in Christianity (and Islam)

Contrary to popular understanding that secularization is inherent in biblical faith, secularization is in fact has no roots in Christianity. This attempt to justify secularization comes not from the bible but from the Western man's interpretation of the bible, due to their long history of philosophical and metaphysical conflict between dogma and reason.

In fact, there is evidence in history to demonstrate that the early Christians consistently opposed secularization. Contrary to secularization, Christianity has always preached a closed metaphysical world view. Christianity consistently assimilated certain idols and icons (e.g the cross as the symbol of the religion, saint worship etc.) and did not deconsecrate values the way secularization does.

The separation between religion and the state as observed in the history of the West occurred not because Christianity 'realized' the secular message in the bible, but because it was an attempt to slow down the tides of secularization.

This claim that secularization has its roots in the Christian religion can thus be regarded as fanciful and a clever yet subtle attempt to "extricate Christianity from its own self-orginated dilemmas."

Unfortunately, some Muslims are also arguing the same way; attempting to justify secularization by arguing that it has roots in the Islamic faith. They freely quote the verse:

“Behold! Allah changes not the condition of a people until they change that which is within them. [13:11]”

They interpret 'change' here in the secularistic sense; change implied as a deconsecration of values. This is a clear deviation from the intended meaning of the verse as understood by the early authoritative scholars, because 'change' here refers to 'negative change' or in other words a 'corruption'.

The verse that follows from the verse above supports our view:

"If Allah wills misfortune for a people, there is none that can repel it, nor have they any defender other than Him [13:11]”

Therefore there is no other way to view secularization except in a negative light; that it is an anti-religion philosophical process and that it only "brings misfortune for a people" as mentioned in the verse above. Any attempts to justify secularization in religion should be properly rejected.

Refuting secularization

Firstly, if we are to accept the validity of the secularists' assertions that the early Christians "had made a grave fundamental mistake, and had misled Christians in the course of their spiritual and intellectual history" by not realizing the secular message of the bible, this also means that the whole of Christian doctrines should be rejected too because the early Christians can also make mistakes in those things. How can they be sure that the early Christians only made the mistake of not realizing the secular message of the bible and not other mistakes too?

The same applies to the religion of Islam. If Muslims start to doubt the reporting, formulation and conceptualization of Islam by the early authoritative scholars the same way that secularized Christians are doing, it undermines the whole of Islam altogether.

Secondly, if we are to accept the validity of the secularists' assertions that the early Christians had wrongly interpreted the bible, this also means that "God sent His revelation or revealed Himself to man when man was in his 'infantile' stage of 'evolution'."

This again is very problematic, because it also means that the early Christians were too immature to understand the bible correctly. If such is the case then this would mean that in all other matters they would have made mistakes as well. This casts doubt over the reliability of reporting the revelation properly. This applies to Islam as well; there can be no room for doubting the reliability of the early Muslim scholars, because when there is doubt, the whole idea of religion collapses altogether.

At the same time, why would God reveal himself to infantile man? As the Creator, He should know when Man is ready to receive and understand His Revelation?

In response to this, the secularist may say that God sent His Revelation to "initiate the process of maturing in him" so that when he has reached maturity he would be able to know its true meaning and purpose.

But if that's the case, who decides when Man is matured enough to understand? Is Man matured in this modern, secular age? If he is matured now, then why is he still inadequately informed about God and still groping for the meaning in God?

Two Christianities

Christians are unable to be certain about their own religion because there exists various reports of the bible that are contradicting. The gospel of St Barnabas and other reports that of Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers contradict the 'official' version.

Which is why in the Muslim perspective, there actually are two Christianities; the original monotheistic and true one and the Western version of Christianity.

It is the followers of the true and original Christianity that the Qur'an categorize as Ahl al-Kitab, who believed in the original and true teachings of the Prophet Jesus and would join the ranks of Islam with the coming of Rasulullah S.A.W. These are the people that were referred to in the Qur'an as nearest in love to the Muslims.

The Ahl al-Kitab hence does not refer to the Trinitarian Westernized Christianity that is propagated today, who, due to their misapplication of Greek philosophy, ushered them into an era of doubt and skepticism. This subsequently opened doors to agnoticism and atheism, and then utilitarianism, dialectical materialism, evolutionism and historicism prevalent in the mind of Western man.

As such, with regards to the "Allah" issue in Malaysia, the Trinitarian Western version of Christianity has no right to use "Allah" because they attach different, improper meanings to Him. It is the monotheistic Christians who have the right to use "Allah" because they understand "Allah" the same way as Muslims do.

Suffah Study Circle 2

Suffah Study Circle 2

Dated on the 27.12.2009

Studying text pg 5 to 12, Islam and Secularism,

Prof Naquib Al-Attas

Prepared by Samir Syirazi Bin Mustafa Kamal

Brief Summary

During our 2^nd Suffah study meeting, we have discussed how the Christians are pushing for a de-Hellenization of Christianity. This basically means that they are pushing for Christianity to stop adopting Greek ideas or customs, and in this case, to stop believing in Aristotelian thought. They believe that Hellenization has resulted in problems such as conceiving God as a suprarational Person, which means that God cannot be comprehended by reason alone, and the Trinity. They are also pushing for the demythologization of Christian scriptures, which means they are planning to remove the mythical aspects of it (i.e miracles, Revelations)

so that they can relay the message again, but this time in more rational (i.e logical, scientific) terms.

The Christians also have a problem dubbed the “problem of God”, as they have made a distinction between essence and existence. Since God’s Being is identical with His Existence, and His Essence cannot be proven, that also means that His existence cannot be proven as well, which throws His Existence in doubt. Therefore, a person has to have faith in order to believe that God exists, and because of this problematic nature of their concept of God, they are

comtemplating discarding the name “God” altogether and coining a new name (i.e Nature, Intelligent Being).

Christianity also allows for future change(s) in line with historical “development” demands and needs, as long as the change(s) fit into the doctrine of the Trinity.

Aristotelian thought and Parmenidean thought

Aristotelian thought basically regards God’s existence as necessary, while everything else (i.e creatures) is contingent (i.e up to the Will of God whether He wants them

to exist or not), both in mind and reality.

The uncomfortable fusion of Parmenidean and Aristotelian thought basically regards God’s existence as necessary, and while it regards creatures contingent as to their being, their existence is necessary in thought. This means that whether anything exists outside of the mind, are up to the Will of God, but everything always exist in the mind.

The Christians adopted Aristotelian thought and also continued to adopt the Parmenidean thought at the same time, therefore the resulting conclusion is that the essence of the creature in thought is necessary, but is contingent when it is outside of thought. A simple example

discussed during our Suffah study meeting to explain this conclusion would be a pink unicorn. We can describe the pink unicorn as “pink in colour”, “who has a horn on its head” etc. These are its essence(s), and we can visualize it in our minds (i.e thought). Whether the pink unicorn exists outside of thought (i.e in the real world) however, is a different thing altogether.

Concept of Trinity

The concept of Trinity in Christianity basically teaches the unity of the Father (God), the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Ghost (Spirit) as three persons in one Godhead. However, the term “person” here does not match the same understanding of the meaning of “person” in the modern English Language, where it means “an individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity.”

The Council of Nicaea declared that the Son and the Father is “of the same substance”. This was further developed into the formula “three persons, one same substance” with the addition of the Holy Ghost. Whenever the question “What is God?” was posed to them, the concept of one-ness (one substance) was given as the answer, and whenever the question “Who is God?” was posed, the concept of three persons (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) simultaneously existing in one essence was given as the answer. In this way, the Council of Nicaea managed to keep the doctrine of Trinity without any accusations of worshipping pagan gods (since there are more than one god that the Christians are worshipping i.e the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Ghost) due to the one essence in nature, which to the Christians, means One True God.