The Tragedy of Humanism
By Sayyid Naquib al-Attas
(p 100-101 of “Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam” by Sayyid Naquib al-Attas)
Thursday, December 29, 2011
The Tragedy of Humanism.
(p 100-101 of “Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam” by Sayyid Naquib al-Attas)
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
The Unity of Divine Guidance
By: Dr Sani Badron
Western scholars have found it difficult to define religion.
The word religion probably refers to either one of these three Latin verbs: relegere (to observe conscientiously), religari (to bind oneself back), or reeligere (to choose again).
Due to the questionable etymology of the word ‘religion', for Western thinkers, there is no clear definition of religion. For some Western thinkers, there could even never be any clear meaning and concept of religion.
Richard McBrien, author of an encylopaedic work Catholicism states: "The very attempt to define religion is itself problematical."
He summarizes thus: "Region is very difficult to define. In fact, there is no single definition agreed upon by all, even within the religious sciences themselves. It is not even clear from which word or words the term ‘religion' is derived." (p. 390).
Therefore, on the one hand Western secular thinkers have described religion only as an element of man-made culture. On the other hand, Western theologians conceive religion at most in terms of faith which is vaguely expressed as a system of doctrines, pledges, and rites, all gradually developed in history.
Such a conception of religion merely "in terms of faith vaguely expressed" has been throughout Western history productive of exclusivism: a very narrow understanding of revelation, of the availability of divine grace, and of the universal salvific will.
That exclusivism is exemplified in Mr. Thwackum's remark in Henry Fielding's Tom Jones: "When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England." For another example, this time given by McBrien, is the fact that in so many earlier papal documents preceding the Church of the Second Vatican Council's Declaration in 1965, the principle of religious freedom is condemned in unequivocal manner, as formulated in the maxim "error has no right".
Hence, for example, the burning of ‘heretics' in the Medieval Inquisition (1180s-1230s), in the Spanish Inquisition (1480s-1800s), in the Portuguese Inquisition (1536-1821), and in the Roman Inquisition (1550s-1750s). All those inquisitions happened during almost a century, and have been generally approved by Western religious authorities up till present times, to mention nothing of the Crusaders who fought against the Muslim polity for almost five hundred years. This fact has also been well-documented in scholarly works such as Walter Wakefield's "Inquisition", Albert Hourani's "Western Attitude towards Islam", C. F. Beckingham's "Misconceptions of Islam: Medieval and Modern", and Karen Armstrong's Holy War: The Crusaders and Their Impact on Today's World.
Or rather, as McBrien put it, there was a double standard:
the Church demands freedom for itself when in a minority position but refuses to grant freedom to other religions when the situation was reversed. On the contrary, a Muslim's conception of religion is not merely the result of his discursive thinking. It is, rather, his understanding of Qur'anic teachings. Indeed, to have a true understanding of a Muslim's conception of religion one must first of all know how religion is defined in the Qur'an, which is the source of Muslim belief and practice.
The classical biographers of the Prophet Muhammad shared the view that the first Qur'anic revelation was sent to him in the year 13 before Hijrah, which corresponds to, as some historians have computed, 22 December, 609 CE. This was the beginning of a new, universal religion, namely Islam that was going to be revealed over a period of twenty-three years. Obviously, this new religion was very conscious of the fact that there were already so many religious traditions then in the world; of these, Christianity, Judaism, Sabeanism, and Zoroastrianism were perhaps the most important ones. The Qur'an claims to be the only divine revelation that is sempiternal that can be relied upon to set forth religious truths, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations, and determining what is true therein (see al-Ma'idah, 5:28).
It is through the Qur'an that Islam claims itself to be the religion that possesses the totality of truth realized in the first Community of Believers of Madinah under the authority and jurisdiction of the Prophet.
This particular concept of the perfect religion is couched in the Qur'anic term al-Din and, more specifically, Din Allah, Din al-Haqq, al-Din al-Qayyim, and al-Din al-Khalis which means "the religion of Allah", "the religion of the Truth", "the one ever-true Religion", and "the original religious submission", respectively.
With all of its forms that occur ninety-five times, din is "an extremely important key term in the Qur'an", as remarked in Toshihiko Izutsu's God and Man in the Qur'an.
Implied in its claim to be the most perfect religion, one of the beliefs of Islam is the "unity of all messages of Allah to mankind". This principle is elucidated with precision by Abu Hafs ‘Umar Najm al-Din al-Nasafi (d. 537 /1142) as: "Allah, may He be exalted, has sent a number of messengers from among mankind to their fellow mankind announcing good tidings, cautioning against evil and making clear for all mankind what they have need for of the undertakings of the world and of religion....The first among the Prophets was Adam and the last among them is Muhammad, may Allah bless and give him peace....All of them are transmitters of commands from Allah, veracious in conveying their teachings for all creatures. The most excellent among the prophets is Muhammad, Allah's blessings and peace be upon him."
This can be easily understood even by non-Muslim Islamologists, like Montgomery Watt, who has once remarked that "belief in other prophets...is of course included in the message Muhammad received from God by revelation." (Italics mine.) In this light, all of the adherents of Islam do, in fact, unanimously uphold an inclusive belief in the "unity of divine messages". This unity was vitiated, however, if or when men falsified Divine Scripture, substituting the revealed words with false, human words and distorting the former with their dishonest tongues.
By so doing, they superimposed falsehood on the truth, repressing and concealing the latter, reflecting their envy and arrogance to religious truths. Hence the importance of being humbly guided by the revealed Scripture which is known completely in the same living language in which it was revealed by God the Guide.
Western scholars have found it difficult to define religion.
The word religion probably refers to either one of these three Latin verbs: relegere (to observe conscientiously), religari (to bind oneself back), or reeligere (to choose again).
Due to the questionable etymology of the word ‘religion', for Western thinkers, there is no clear definition of religion. For some Western thinkers, there could even never be any clear meaning and concept of religion.
Richard McBrien, author of an encylopaedic work Catholicism states: "The very attempt to define religion is itself problematical."
He summarizes thus: "Region is very difficult to define. In fact, there is no single definition agreed upon by all, even within the religious sciences themselves. It is not even clear from which word or words the term ‘religion' is derived." (p. 390).
Therefore, on the one hand Western secular thinkers have described religion only as an element of man-made culture. On the other hand, Western theologians conceive religion at most in terms of faith which is vaguely expressed as a system of doctrines, pledges, and rites, all gradually developed in history.
Such a conception of religion merely "in terms of faith vaguely expressed" has been throughout Western history productive of exclusivism: a very narrow understanding of revelation, of the availability of divine grace, and of the universal salvific will.
That exclusivism is exemplified in Mr. Thwackum's remark in Henry Fielding's Tom Jones: "When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England." For another example, this time given by McBrien, is the fact that in so many earlier papal documents preceding the Church of the Second Vatican Council's Declaration in 1965, the principle of religious freedom is condemned in unequivocal manner, as formulated in the maxim "error has no right".
Hence, for example, the burning of ‘heretics' in the Medieval Inquisition (1180s-1230s), in the Spanish Inquisition (1480s-1800s), in the Portuguese Inquisition (1536-1821), and in the Roman Inquisition (1550s-1750s). All those inquisitions happened during almost a century, and have been generally approved by Western religious authorities up till present times, to mention nothing of the Crusaders who fought against the Muslim polity for almost five hundred years. This fact has also been well-documented in scholarly works such as Walter Wakefield's "Inquisition", Albert Hourani's "Western Attitude towards Islam", C. F. Beckingham's "Misconceptions of Islam: Medieval and Modern", and Karen Armstrong's Holy War: The Crusaders and Their Impact on Today's World.
Or rather, as McBrien put it, there was a double standard:
the Church demands freedom for itself when in a minority position but refuses to grant freedom to other religions when the situation was reversed. On the contrary, a Muslim's conception of religion is not merely the result of his discursive thinking. It is, rather, his understanding of Qur'anic teachings. Indeed, to have a true understanding of a Muslim's conception of religion one must first of all know how religion is defined in the Qur'an, which is the source of Muslim belief and practice.
The classical biographers of the Prophet Muhammad shared the view that the first Qur'anic revelation was sent to him in the year 13 before Hijrah, which corresponds to, as some historians have computed, 22 December, 609 CE. This was the beginning of a new, universal religion, namely Islam that was going to be revealed over a period of twenty-three years. Obviously, this new religion was very conscious of the fact that there were already so many religious traditions then in the world; of these, Christianity, Judaism, Sabeanism, and Zoroastrianism were perhaps the most important ones. The Qur'an claims to be the only divine revelation that is sempiternal that can be relied upon to set forth religious truths, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations, and determining what is true therein (see al-Ma'idah, 5:28).
It is through the Qur'an that Islam claims itself to be the religion that possesses the totality of truth realized in the first Community of Believers of Madinah under the authority and jurisdiction of the Prophet.
This particular concept of the perfect religion is couched in the Qur'anic term al-Din and, more specifically, Din Allah, Din al-Haqq, al-Din al-Qayyim, and al-Din al-Khalis which means "the religion of Allah", "the religion of the Truth", "the one ever-true Religion", and "the original religious submission", respectively.
With all of its forms that occur ninety-five times, din is "an extremely important key term in the Qur'an", as remarked in Toshihiko Izutsu's God and Man in the Qur'an.
Implied in its claim to be the most perfect religion, one of the beliefs of Islam is the "unity of all messages of Allah to mankind". This principle is elucidated with precision by Abu Hafs ‘Umar Najm al-Din al-Nasafi (d. 537 /1142) as: "Allah, may He be exalted, has sent a number of messengers from among mankind to their fellow mankind announcing good tidings, cautioning against evil and making clear for all mankind what they have need for of the undertakings of the world and of religion....The first among the Prophets was Adam and the last among them is Muhammad, may Allah bless and give him peace....All of them are transmitters of commands from Allah, veracious in conveying their teachings for all creatures. The most excellent among the prophets is Muhammad, Allah's blessings and peace be upon him."
This can be easily understood even by non-Muslim Islamologists, like Montgomery Watt, who has once remarked that "belief in other prophets...is of course included in the message Muhammad received from God by revelation." (Italics mine.) In this light, all of the adherents of Islam do, in fact, unanimously uphold an inclusive belief in the "unity of divine messages". This unity was vitiated, however, if or when men falsified Divine Scripture, substituting the revealed words with false, human words and distorting the former with their dishonest tongues.
By so doing, they superimposed falsehood on the truth, repressing and concealing the latter, reflecting their envy and arrogance to religious truths. Hence the importance of being humbly guided by the revealed Scripture which is known completely in the same living language in which it was revealed by God the Guide.
On the Betrayal of Social Trust
by: Dr Sani Badron
The most destructive unjust deed to one's self, family, society and state revolves around three vices: lying, breaking a promise, and betraying a trust. The modern Muslim world has long been reminded to effectively check these vices since the First World Conference on Muslim Education held at Mecca, in the April of 1977, when Dr. Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas presented the plenary paper on "the Definition and Aims of Education." He was quick to point out that although those three vicious characteristics may sound like three different acts, in reality they are three different ascending degrees of lying-lying when speaking, lying when not fulfilling a promise, and lying by breaking someone's trust.
A similar view has been stated by Sayyid Sulaiman Nadwi in his study on ethics according to the Prophet.
Likewise, Toshihiko Izutsu, in his work Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur'an, views that practically all the moral values in Islam may be said to have something to do with the idea of trustworthiness.
The moral concern here is not dissimilar from that of a Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.).
This greatest orator of ancient Rome aptly observed in the moral treatise written in the last year of his life, De Officiis, that "no type of injustice is more glaring than that of the hypocrite who, in the very instant of being most false, makes the pretence of appearing virtuous."
Many verses of the Qur'an as well as many other authentic hadiths have corroborated this principle.
As far as the religion of Islam is concerned, dishonesty is simply antithetical to true belief, real faith, and conscious submission to God, who has confided trust in human being (see the Qur'an, 33:72-73).
A mu'min or a muslim can never be a habitual liar nor a betrayer of trust as far as his ethics and morality is concerned.
The Prophet said that the one who does not possess honesty, does not possess Faith, and the one who does not keep his pledge, is not a Muslim (la imana li-man la amanata lahu wa la dina li-man la ‘ahda lahu, narrated by Ahmad, al-Tabarani, and al-Bayhaqi). Following the Prophet, the first Caliph Abu Bakr al-Siddiq stated that, "dishonesty shuns belief and faith (al-kidhb mujanab al-Iman)," while the second one ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said that, "there is no mu'min who is a deceitful (la tajid al-mu'min kadhdhaban)."
In al-Hasan al-Basri's apt summation of religious lip-service, "being untruthful is that in which hypocrisy is comprised (al-kidhb jima' al-nifaq)." Indeed, being untruthful contradicts being obedient and faithful to God.
Imam Malik's al-Muwatta' recorded that a man asked the Prophet whether a believer could be a coward. The answer was in the affirmative. He then asked whether a believer could be a miser. Again the Prophet replied in the affirmative. However, when the man next asked whether a believer could be a liar, the Prophet answered in the negative (narrated in Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr's al-Tamhid and Ibn Abi al-Dunya's al-Samt).
Some Companions even reported in a very famous tradition that they had heard the Prophet saying that a believer could have any characteristic except dishonesty and the inclination to breach trust (‘ala kulli khallatin yutba‘u al-mu'minu illa al-khiyanata wa al-kadhib).
The Prophet was so meticulous in warning his people against lying, breaking one's word, and breach of trust that once he saw a woman calling her child saying, "Come on, I'll give you something!" He asked her whether she would really give the child something. When the woman replied that she would give him a date, the Prophet warned: "If you were not to give something, that would be a lie!"
He was not only against deceiving humans, but even warned people against deceiving animals. Once, annoyed at seeing one of his Companions calling his horse using deception, he said: "You should give up deceiving animals. You should be trustworthy even in your treatment of them!"
Finally, there is an anecdote which, according to Nadwi, although weak with regards to its transmission, is very effective as far as the message is concerned. It is stated that a person came to the Prophet and confessed to him that he had four bad habits. The person informed the Prophet that he was a fornicator, a thief, a drinker and a liar.
He requested the Prophet to order him to leave any one of them and he would comply. The Prophet asked him not to tell lies; the man promised he would not. At night fall the man felt a desire to drink and the urge for sexual gratification. He wondered what answer he would give in the morning if the Prophet asked about drinking and fornication. If he admitted to having indulged in drinking and fornication he would be punished for the crimes. On the other hand, if he denied drinking and fornication he would be telling a lie which would be breaking his solemn pledge to the Prophet.
So, he decided not to indulge in either.
When the night passed further and it became very dark, he wanted to go out to steal. The same thoughts came into his mind. If tomorrow he admitted to theft, his hand would be amputated, and if he denied it he would be breaking his promise.
In the morning he hastened to see the Prophet and told him that because of the promise not to tell lies, he had become free of all four bad habits. Hence, the importance for us to seriously systematize in an objective manner these comprehensive criteria into an educational devise. This devise, which is essentially educative, must be able to be applied as a moral check, in a positive and effective manner, on all who will pass through the educational process leading to appointments to responsible posts and offices.
The most destructive unjust deed to one's self, family, society and state revolves around three vices: lying, breaking a promise, and betraying a trust. The modern Muslim world has long been reminded to effectively check these vices since the First World Conference on Muslim Education held at Mecca, in the April of 1977, when Dr. Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas presented the plenary paper on "the Definition and Aims of Education." He was quick to point out that although those three vicious characteristics may sound like three different acts, in reality they are three different ascending degrees of lying-lying when speaking, lying when not fulfilling a promise, and lying by breaking someone's trust.
A similar view has been stated by Sayyid Sulaiman Nadwi in his study on ethics according to the Prophet.
Likewise, Toshihiko Izutsu, in his work Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur'an, views that practically all the moral values in Islam may be said to have something to do with the idea of trustworthiness.
The moral concern here is not dissimilar from that of a Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.).
This greatest orator of ancient Rome aptly observed in the moral treatise written in the last year of his life, De Officiis, that "no type of injustice is more glaring than that of the hypocrite who, in the very instant of being most false, makes the pretence of appearing virtuous."
Many verses of the Qur'an as well as many other authentic hadiths have corroborated this principle.
As far as the religion of Islam is concerned, dishonesty is simply antithetical to true belief, real faith, and conscious submission to God, who has confided trust in human being (see the Qur'an, 33:72-73).
A mu'min or a muslim can never be a habitual liar nor a betrayer of trust as far as his ethics and morality is concerned.
The Prophet said that the one who does not possess honesty, does not possess Faith, and the one who does not keep his pledge, is not a Muslim (la imana li-man la amanata lahu wa la dina li-man la ‘ahda lahu, narrated by Ahmad, al-Tabarani, and al-Bayhaqi). Following the Prophet, the first Caliph Abu Bakr al-Siddiq stated that, "dishonesty shuns belief and faith (al-kidhb mujanab al-Iman)," while the second one ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said that, "there is no mu'min who is a deceitful (la tajid al-mu'min kadhdhaban)."
In al-Hasan al-Basri's apt summation of religious lip-service, "being untruthful is that in which hypocrisy is comprised (al-kidhb jima' al-nifaq)." Indeed, being untruthful contradicts being obedient and faithful to God.
Imam Malik's al-Muwatta' recorded that a man asked the Prophet whether a believer could be a coward. The answer was in the affirmative. He then asked whether a believer could be a miser. Again the Prophet replied in the affirmative. However, when the man next asked whether a believer could be a liar, the Prophet answered in the negative (narrated in Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr's al-Tamhid and Ibn Abi al-Dunya's al-Samt).
Some Companions even reported in a very famous tradition that they had heard the Prophet saying that a believer could have any characteristic except dishonesty and the inclination to breach trust (‘ala kulli khallatin yutba‘u al-mu'minu illa al-khiyanata wa al-kadhib).
The Prophet was so meticulous in warning his people against lying, breaking one's word, and breach of trust that once he saw a woman calling her child saying, "Come on, I'll give you something!" He asked her whether she would really give the child something. When the woman replied that she would give him a date, the Prophet warned: "If you were not to give something, that would be a lie!"
He was not only against deceiving humans, but even warned people against deceiving animals. Once, annoyed at seeing one of his Companions calling his horse using deception, he said: "You should give up deceiving animals. You should be trustworthy even in your treatment of them!"
Finally, there is an anecdote which, according to Nadwi, although weak with regards to its transmission, is very effective as far as the message is concerned. It is stated that a person came to the Prophet and confessed to him that he had four bad habits. The person informed the Prophet that he was a fornicator, a thief, a drinker and a liar.
He requested the Prophet to order him to leave any one of them and he would comply. The Prophet asked him not to tell lies; the man promised he would not. At night fall the man felt a desire to drink and the urge for sexual gratification. He wondered what answer he would give in the morning if the Prophet asked about drinking and fornication. If he admitted to having indulged in drinking and fornication he would be punished for the crimes. On the other hand, if he denied drinking and fornication he would be telling a lie which would be breaking his solemn pledge to the Prophet.
So, he decided not to indulge in either.
When the night passed further and it became very dark, he wanted to go out to steal. The same thoughts came into his mind. If tomorrow he admitted to theft, his hand would be amputated, and if he denied it he would be breaking his promise.
In the morning he hastened to see the Prophet and told him that because of the promise not to tell lies, he had become free of all four bad habits. Hence, the importance for us to seriously systematize in an objective manner these comprehensive criteria into an educational devise. This devise, which is essentially educative, must be able to be applied as a moral check, in a positive and effective manner, on all who will pass through the educational process leading to appointments to responsible posts and offices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)