Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts

Jul 12, 2014

Gaza ki Shame Ghariban - Dr. Nighat Naseem

The heart longed for words that could express its pain and sorrow for the ongoing massacre in Gaza. And then it found this poignant poem by Dr. Nighat Naseem (Sydney), posted on Jan 10, 2009 at this link (the link also has a Farsi translation of this poem). 



غزہ کی شامِ غریباں ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

چودہ سوسال کے بعد بھی ہم کربلا میں ہی ہیں
وہی یزید ابنِ یزید ابنِ یزید ابنِ یزید
وہی تقاضہ ء بیعت
وہی منافقت کی قبائیں اوڑھے ہوئے بدبودار ضمیر فروش حاکم
وہی فرات کے کنارے کربلا کی طرح غزہ کی پٹی
وہی رات کے سناٹے میں تاریکی کے بین
وہی کربلا ہے،وہی شام غریباں ہے اور وہی معصوم اور شیر خوار بچوں پر ظلم کی آخری حد
قسم ہے مجھکو میری خون روتی آنکھوں کی
اس کربلا سے اس کربلا تک کچھ بھی تو نہیں بدلا
میں سہمی ہوئی اپنی سوچوں سے لپٹی
خود سے ہی پوچھتی ہوں
ہاں سنو
کیا تمہیں جنگ کی وہ سیاہ رات یاد ھے
جب اچانک سائرن بج اٹھے تھے
اور بارود کی بو پھیل گئی تھی
چیخوں کے ساتھ ھر طرف خون بکھر گیا تھا
اس رات غزہ پر کیا گزری
کسی نے نہ سوچا
کسی نے نہ پوچھا
ہائے
ایسی وحشت کی راتیں کیسے گزرتی ھیں
اندھیروں میں ڈوبی شبیہیں کیسے دھندلاتی ھیں
بھوک سے لپٹی جانیں کیسے مر جاتی ھیں
غم میں سوختہ جاں مائیں کیسے بین کرتی ھیں
ظالم مظلوم کو کیسے رسوا کرتا ہے
بارود کیسے خون میں اُتر جاتا ہے اور نسوں میں دوڑتا ہے
بوڑھا باپ جوان میت کو رخصت کرتے ہوئے کیسے چومتا ہے
سات سال کی بچی اپنی پانچ سالہ بہن کو کیسے دلاسہ دیتی ہے
کیسے تین روز تک
چار بچے اپنی ماں کی لاش سے لپٹے رہتے ہیں
کیا تم نے سوچا
کیا تم نے پوچھا
غزہ پر اس رات کیا گزری
چلو آج
اکیسوی صدی کانوحہ لکھ دو
انسانیت کو بربریت لکھ دو
یہ بھی لکھ دو
اس دنیامیں ایک جہاں وہ بھی ھے
جہاں انسان
ایک قطرہ پانی کو ترستے ھیں
ایک نوالہ روٹی کو تاکتے ھے
نڈھال اپنے پیاروں کو ڈھونڈتے ھیں
بچے اپنے ھی گھروں کا پتہ پوچھتے ھیں
ہائے
کیا اب یہاں کوئی انسان بھی بستا ھے
یا
پھر اب یہاں ایک ھی جہاں بستا ھے
طاقت کا منافقت کا جھوٹ کا اور نفرت کا جہاں
جہاں
معصوم بچے مر رھے ھیں
جتنی بارود کی بو پھیلتی ھے
اتنے ھی انسان مر رھیں ھیں
جتنی چیخیں گونجتی ھیں
اتنے ھی لاشے گر رھے ھیں
لوگو
یہ غزہ کے نہتے مسلمان نہیں
ھم تم مر رھے ھیں
آج
غزہ کا ایک ایک بچہ پکار رھا ھے
اسی دنیا کو کس نے مقتل بنارکھا ھے
پھولوں کی جگہ لاشوں کواگا رکھا ھے
خوف
اداسی
ناامیدی
کس نے ھمارا مقدر بنارکھا ھے ؟
فرات کے کنارے بسی ہوئی غزہ کی بستی کے گھروں میں
اکیسویں صدی کی شامِ غریباں ہے
گھروں سے دھواں برابر اٹھ رہا ہے
اور یہ سب انسانی حقوق کے داعی اس جدید عہد کے
یزیدوں کا کام ہے
جو سب ایک ساتھ مل کر بیعت کا تقاضہ کر رہے ہیں
مگر کریں کیا کہ
"قافلہ حجاز میں ایک بھی حسین نہیں"

ڈاکٹر نگہت نسیم

Apr 22, 2010

Bringing Islam to Our Campuses

Bringing Islam to Our Campuses
Ali A., IslamicInsights, April 19, 2010
Source

Allow me to start with a few inter-related questions. What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear the word "Shia"? Is it a specific color? Is it a certain "Shia" practice, or tradition, or occasion? Is it some experience you had while growing up? Is it a picture of some iconic "Shia" figure, or some symbol? Perhaps, it may be something totally different. Now, think about what comes to your mind when you hear the word "Muslim"? Is it the same color? How is this image similar or different from the one you have for "Shia"? Similarly, think about the words "Jewish", "Hindu", and "Buddhist".

These questions are meant to draw your attention to a basic anthropological observation. The more visible and ritualistic aspects of a religious tradition – symbols, celebrations, practices, people – usually become the medium through which most followers develop their understanding of the religion itself. These aspects may also become the primary markers of identity for the followers themselves and in the eyes of the outsiders. Traditions, practices, and other outer aspects are a very useful medium to convey deeper religious meanings and also to preserve them. They appeal to multiple levels of human faculties – physical, emotional, rational, spiritual. The problem occurs – and speaking from an Islamic perspective and focusing only on Islam here – when in the minds of the followers the visible and ritualistic aspects become all what Islam is supposed to be, and the followers do not realize their deeper meanings and social implications. Islam, in other words, becomes merely ritualistic or superficial.

A Self-Transformative Approach

The ritualistic Islam is just one among many other kinds of Islam-s out there. Whatever the kind of Islam we understand and practice is what we will bring to our on-campus activism. However, our understandings may or may not be in line with the true essence of Islam. That uncertainty alone is enough reason to warrant, in the first step of any outreach efforts, a careful reconsideration of our Islamic understanding. That brings me to a major point of this piece. Our outreach efforts should be oriented toward a sincere and constant reevaluation and development of our Islamic understanding, and through that process we should define the kind of outreach projects and activities we want to do as organizations or movements.

That reevaluation cannot happen simply by listening to monologues; that further development of Islamic understanding cannot happen if we just think about 'educating others'. They require a different approach, in particular, a discursive space for self-reflective, critical, and constructive engagement. That is what we first need to build within our organizations. Without a constant reevaluation of our Islamic understanding, the choices we make about activities, speakers, and outreach strategies and content may all just reinforce our previously held beliefs.

Having such a discursive space would also allow us to evaluate our activities and strategies on a regular basis. For evaluating the effectiveness of any of our activities, a critical measure should be to see if the members themselves have learnt from that experience. This is a critical element of, what is named here as, the Self-Transformative Approach. Promoting awareness of Islam should not be like teaching physics. I may or may not believe in Quantum Mechanics or String Theory, but I can still teach them in my classes. Islam should not be treated that way. Islam, as I have understood so far, is about "believing" and "doing" and their inseparable connection, but more than that it is a way of "being". It is a journey of self-transformation. Our outreach efforts should also be part of that journey, but they should not become the end in themselves.

Organizing outreach activities – congregational prayers, Du'a Kumail on Thursdays, tabling for promoting Islamic awareness, lecture events, etc. – in themselves cannot be the criterion of our effectiveness and success. Instead, what we gain from those experiences – in terms of increasing our spirituality and social awareness – is how we should evaluate their impact, along with other indicators. (As I write these words, I should ask myself: how does this activity relate to my own journey?) I strongly believe that as we do Islamic outreach with this approach, or method, transforming ourselves and building an environment of sincere learning and activism, we will inevitably impact others around us.

Expanding Our Horizons

A critical factor in this self-transformative approach is the scope of the perspective with which we understand Islam and do Islamic activism. I may lead a discussion on Hajj where I may just focus on the DOs and DONOTs of specific rituals and the places to visit in Mecca and Medina, or I may also delve into the deeper meanings of each and every ritual obligation of Hajj, from declaring the Niyyat (intention) and Tawaf (circumambulation) of Kaaba to the mandatory stay in Arafat and Sacrifice. Similarly, I may read Du'a Kumail and its translation every Thursday evening with friends, yet not reflect on its meaning or relevance. Or, I may also ponder over that one beautiful point toward the end of Du'a Kumail, asking God to turn all of my activities, during day and night, into a constant remembrance of God, and based on that standard define and evaluate my activities, values, career choices, and goals of life. When I organize a food drive, I may just satisfy myself by feeding the poor. Or, I may also take the next step and realize that Islam's socially conscious teachings demand that I ask why the poor is poor and what could be done about various forms of economic and social exploitations which lie at the roots of widespread hunger and poverty. All these examples are meant to elaborate the same point: our perspectives or levels of understanding of Islam have a direct impact on the scope of our activities; hence, the need for constant re-evaluation and expansion of our horizons.

For that reason, it is absolutely essential that we educate ourselves in scholarly literature on religious and contemporary issues. And, just knowing them is not enough. We also need to see what principles and inspirations we can derive from them that could guide our activities. In short, we need to develop an informed perspective (or perspectives) for all of our activities. The "Save Darfur" movement provides a useful illustration, and warning, in this regard. Without doubt tragic injustices occurred in Sudan and needed our immediate attention. A large number of ordinary participants across North America supported the "Save Darfur" movement out of their genuine concerns, humanitarian and religious, but they did not know that the organizers of the movement were intentionally pushing their hideous agenda behind this cause. Mahmood Mamdani of Columbia University has documented the politics of that agenda in detail in his book Saviors and Survivors. In short, as Alan Kuperman summarized in his op-ed in the New York Times (May 31, 2006), instead of helping the cause, the "Save Darfur" movement actually "poured fuel on the fire". It is unfortunate that, still unaware of the organizers' agenda, a majority of ordinary participants continue to support that movement.

An informed understanding of issues and surrounding politics, therefore, is absolutely essential for all activities and causes that we take up on our campuses. In order to build that informed perspective, I emphasize again the need to develop a discursive space for critical dialogue among ourselves and also with scholars – from campus and outside – where we can define and evaluate our principles, strategies, alternatives, and short and long term goals. More examples of issues about which we need to observe similar care include the efforts to promote a positive image of Islam in Euro-American societies, defending pro-justice causes like that of supporting the Palestine cause, talking about gender issues, and presenting various moral and philosophical positions in the name of Islam.

It is quite natural to have doubts and unresolved questions during the college years. Students come across a range of conflicting ideas and questions in their classes, particularly those in social sciences and humanities. Those ideas directly impact their thoughts, outlooks, values, identities, lifestyles, and goals of life. It is very important that our gatherings provide a positive environment to engage those doubts and questions and use those occasions as opportunities for sharing and learning knowledge. Such gatherings, similarly, can help participants reevaluate their culturally constructed ideas of taste, desire, beauty, identity, and aspirations in life, all of which also impact their understanding and practice of Islam.

For example, the discussions and other activities may draw their attention to individual consumer choices and their connection to exploitation of people, cultures, and environment in their own country and other parts of the world. Such activities may also help them to realize the connection between, for example, "perfect body" images in their favorite Disney movies, TV shows, teen magazines, and advertisements and teen's low self-esteem and materialistic attitudes, and, also, how these adverse effects could be countered by re-defining our standards of beauty and adopting simplicity and modesty. The activities may also examine the distorted histories that are taught in classrooms, in different on-campus events, and promoted through celebrations and holidays like Columbus Day, and their connection to reinforcing racism and historical injustices. I feel that such discussions would inevitably have a self-transformative effect on all participants, including the organizers, broadening their understanding of what Islam is about and also its relevance to society. Islamic Insights contains a range of excellent topics and material to engage with in our campus activities. See also an excellent list of discussion topics compiled by SIA Chai-Chats.

We should also encourage our members and participants to gain necessary skills, knowledge, and experiences to advance their understanding, such as, learning relevant languages, studying Islamic and contemporary thought and history from multiple perspectives, and traveling abroad to explore different cultures and meet peoples.

Toward Building A Movement

Any on-campus organization, movement, or community that seeks to promote Islamic awareness cannot be built by just a one-day event or a few events each year. That community has to be developed through regular interactions and purposeful activities among organizers, members, and general participants. The regular activities can give them a sense of belonging, a conducive environment for spiritual and intellectual nourishment, a consistent impetus for social activism and striving for self-improvement, and life-long fraternity and learning opportunity through sustained communication and activism after graduation. We need people who are not only highly educated in different fields but who also have informed perspectives, sincere concerns, and positive identities, in short, those who are on the journey of transforming their "beings". In that process, they will inevitably influence the professional areas and communities that they will join after graduation. Promoting these qualities should be one of the major tasks of our on-campus Islamic activism, and as I have argued in this piece, building that discursive space with a friendly and constructive culture can do a lot of service in this regard.

Based on the above discussion, I hope we can see that doing Islamic activism should not be treated like joining just any other cultural or social organization on campus. Islamic activism demands a constant self-evaluation. Any attempt to change our surrounding has to start from within ourselves; the personal is directly connected to the social. And, our activism should be guided by an informed understanding of Islam and contemporary issues.

A practical concern emerges when we try to establish that conducive culture in our organizations: Start with changing hearts or disciplining actions based on Islamic teachings? A frequent issue that comes up in this debate is that of Hijab. Should we have Hijab as a requirement of membership and participation in our activities; at official forums should we allow members who dress modestly but do not cover themselves in formal Hijab to represent the Islamic cause of our organization; about a policy that asks, as the minimal requirement, not formal Hijab but just adherence to "modesty" (for both males and females), what may be its impact on the overall culture and direction of the organization? I cannot get into the details of this particular issue and the broader debate here, but if I may briefly share my perspective, the two directions do not need to be contradictory or mutually exclusive, and the emphasis on one direction or another can vary with contexts. In the university environment and in many other settings, however, I am inclined to approach Islamic activism with an emphasis on the first direction, not as an instrumental choice or strategy but as an appropriate approach to encourage individual perspective-building and meaningful self-transformation. I take this position with the realization that the outcome of this method may not always turn out to be what I consider is the best action or policy. This last point is further elaborated in the following section.

An Ethics of Engagement

Please consider this discussion as only a prologue, an opening of the discussion on this important topic. I do not directly address the related challenges here. Challenges like how to handle ideological and political differences, how to balance theory and practice in our activities, how to reconcile multiplicity of perspectives and the need for unity in actions, how to engage with non-member Muslims and non-Muslims on campus, how to work with other organizations for common causes without compromising our principles, how to build coordination with other Islamic organizations in different universities, and so on. I must admit that these are difficult questions. But at the same time I believe that these challenges should not undermine the objective need and importance of having that self-reflective, discursive space in our organizations.

Toward addressing some of those challenges it may help if instead of unpacking and confronting each and every challenge through rational discourse we start by reflecting on the method, or the ethics of engagement, for building the said discursive space. The method proposed here is oriented in a form of practice – not just rational dialogue – guided by the core teachings of Islam. It is to embark on the journey of self-transformation and in that process tackle those challenges with humility, sincerity, willingness to learn and share, and putting into practice what we learn and believe. There are risks involved in this attempt too. Among other things, this ethics of engagement would be seen as advancing a particular perspective, at the expense of others and excluding those who do not necessarily subscribe to its standards; this ethics is also a perspective after all. That is a valid question, and one of the challenges for any attempt to theorize our activism.

In engaging with that challenge, I would submit that the propositions presented in this article – or proposal – are meant less as a perspective with specified utopian ends or destination and more as a perspective that tries to outline a process of discovery through self-transformation. These propositions are based on a few principles, or (pre)requisites, which I believe are at the core of Islam, and they are what I propose as that ethics of engagement. Let me explicitly outline those principles so you can evaluate them in your discussions and through practice. The first is spirituality; the second is developing a critical social consciousness and striving for social justice and other humanitarian causes; and the third involves attitudes of sincerity, humility, devotion to learning, and willingness to sacrifice.

As I understand, all of these principles have strong rational and spiritual basis. The first is a universal goal in the teachings of all Abrahamic religious traditions, and, arguably, could be found in other prominent religions too, and may even appeal to those who consider themselves 'spiritual but not religious'. Perhaps the most direct statement of this goal in the Islamic tradition could be found in Sura Ash-Shams (Qur'an 91: 1-10). To purify and develop our "beings" and rise above the 'material' in the quest of limitless transcendental realities is a very common realization and pursuit among sages and saints all throughout history. Spirituality also has deep implications for our "worldly" lives and our assessment of social problems, and for the same reason, it should be part of a perspective for social change – as in adopting spirituality as a lifestyle emphasizing simplicity and modesty to resist hyper-consumerism and materialism. The second principle also has deep resonance in the essential teachings of many major religions. Furthermore, it is a shared principle among many pro-justice, environmental, and humanitarian movements – basically, among all those who, irrespective of their religious or non-religious affiliations, are concerned about miserable conditions of humanity today and realize that there are structural and cultural causes responsible for these miseries. The third principle should be self-evident from the teachings of many major religions and from experience. (The comparisons here are meant to point out the wider applicability and universality of these principles and not to advocate a philosophy of religious pluralism that hinges on moral and cultural relativism. I think that much should be obvious from the very nature of the above principles and the overall discussion in this article.)

If we could all agree upon this minimum standard, as the common denominator, and build from there the culture of our organizations and the scope of our activities, I believe we could address many problems and challenges that we face in our activism. One of the outcome of this (usually gradual) process of transformation of "beings", or consciousness, is that it would align our individual predispositions with each other. The logic of our working together would then transcend from the bond of "agreement on particular issues" or "agree to disagree" to the much stronger bond of sharing common goals and principles and supporting each other in our respective journeys, with humility and sincerity. At the same time, we should not expect that this creative process or practice will always result in a unanimously agreed upon perspective or policy on specific issues.

I hope that the points presented in this proposal contribute to theorizing the method and direction of our on-campus Islamic activisms, from defining and evaluating our strategies and activities to making alliances with other organizations for common causes. The discussed approach and their underlying principles favor a discursive and self-transformative process to encourage meaningful perspective-building and activism, and at the same time, they acknowledge the need for some ground rules and boundaries, in order to address, if in part, the problems of endless arguments, lack of direction, and doing activism without understanding. I hope student activists find this proposal helpful toward building meaningful Islamic movements on university campuses and beyond.

Feb 1, 2010

On Institutionalized Sufism in Pakistan

A little essentialism of Sufism here and there, but overall the article quite poignantly sheds light on the connection between sufism and institutionalized power in the Pakistani context. Other facets of Sufism - spiritually inclined and anti-status quo - also exist in Pakistan, although not as prominent in the social sphere (social relations, hierarchical structures). That other facet, however, is quite pronounced in the domain of cultural discourse (poetry, media), appropriated in a variety of ways by different groups, more recently by the pop culture and liberal elites of the Pakistani electronic media. Historically, at some places, the shrines also served as sites of mobilization and resistance against the powers-that-be.

See a relevant post here: "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim"

The bad Sufi
By Qalandar Bux Memon, Dawn, Jan 26, 2010


It is often assumed that Sufism stands opposed to Wahhabism. Wrong. Sufism and Wahhabism, in fact, share a fatal characteristic – they are religions of the status quo. In Pakistan, Sufism legitimises barbarities of inequality and starvation – ‘do nothing, it’s god’s will’ - while at the same time justifying structures of oppressive power, Pirism and landlordism, rather like Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia. Contemporary Sufism, rather than being a solution to Pakistan’s problems, is the cause.

I was sitting at the shrine of Shah Kamal in Lahore, with the dhol beats and whirling dervishes dancing to connect to the ‘centre of the universe in themselves’, when a friend turned and pointed to an old German fellow sitting a few meters from us. “He just delivered a lecture on Sufism. He is an expert on the subject, and talked about how it’s a religion of peace and love.”

I replied curtly: “Have you ever been in love? Have you had your heart broken? What peace is there in that state? What peace was there when Mansur had his head chopped off on the orders of the Baghdadi Emperor? What peace was there when Shah Inayat was fighting against the Mughal emperor for his life and that of his commune? What peace is there in Sassui’s peeling feet as she searches for her beloved through the desert of Sindh?”

My friend agreed and said: “But they pay me – I have to go along with them.”

Western and Pakistani policymakers think Islam can be codified as either a religion of peace and love and given the brand of Sufism, or as a religion of violent jihad. They think it’s better, at this point in time, to promote the peaceful religion of Sufism.

Note how the word Islam is taken out – Sufism is codified as not really Islam. Thus Sufism is considered a perfect native antidote to the violent religion of Islam.

Why are dollars, pounds, rupees and Euros going to promote Sufism? What is it about today’s Sufism that allows it to serve a purpose for the American empire, and what function does it play locally in Pakistan?

The answer was hard for me to stomach. I had spent much time researching aspects of Sufism, and I thought I’d found a touchstone from which to articulate a spirituality that was socially radical and politically challenging to Pakistan’s parasitic elite and the US/Nato invaders. Ziauddin Sardar, polymath writer and scholar of Islam, forced me to face the facts.

He called Sufism “docile”, acting as an opiate for the masses, with most Pirs/Syeds/Sufis amounting to nothing short of “confidence tricksters”. And indeed, Sufism is docile. A shopkeeper in Main Market, Gulberg, had an emblem of the Sufi saint Lal Qalandar hanging in his shop, which he had got from Sehraw Sharif, Sindh, the town where the saint is buried. He said that “what these people do not realise is that 80 per cent of what we pray at the shrine [of Lal Qalandar] comes true.” A popular song sung across the Punjab at Sufi shrines tells women that if they light a lantern at the shrine of saints, their desire for a ‘son’ will be answered.

Items given by holy Pirs - threads, rings, blessings, and even sexual induction before marriage (in the case of a notorious Sindhi landlord/Pir) - are taken as altering the universe and leading to the granting of prayers of health, wealth, and other worthy claims by this mass of the wretched that is the Pakistani citizen. It is not only candles and lanterns that are lit at the shrines; money is exchanged and power is sustained. It is this power that has created a “docile” Sufism.

Pakistan is a vastly unequal society. Government figures put those below the poverty line at close to 40 per cent of the population, though the true figure may be closer to 50 per cent. Inequity is the hallmark of the Sindh province of Pakistan, which is celebrated as “the land of the Sufis” and is where Sufis and Pirs hold power. A recent World Bank report noted that Sindh has the narrowest distribution of land ownership, with the richest one per cent of farmers owning 150 per cent more land than the bottom 62 per cent of farmers put together. Feudal landlords in vast parts of Sindh have holdings of thousands of acres, and most of them are Syeds or Pirs. These lands were sometimes acquired during the Mughal era but were largely consolidated during the British colonial rule in India. The British, looking for local collaborators, found Sufi Pirs willing to oblige.

Sarah Ansari, in her book, Sufi Saints and State Power: The Pirs of Sind, 1843-1947, notes: ‘the Sindhi Pirs participated in the British system of control in order to protect their privileges and to extend them further whenever and wherever possible’.

Today’s feudalists are keen to protect and promote “docile” Sufism to sustain their wealth and power – this time with US help.

Wealth is created by a pool of landless serfs who toil thousands of acres for their spiritual masters, while seeing their own children starve. These serfs create the wealth that sends the Bhuttos and the Gilanis to universities such as Oxford and Harvard, while their children get “blessings” and threads of “Pirs”. This stream of inequity from generation to generation is based on a lame theological idea, which nonetheless has been promoted by the Mughal Empire, the British Empire, the landlords themselves, and now by the American Empire, and thanks to such patronage has gained far more ground than the Taliban. It states that the Prophet was given divine light/knowledge, which passes on to his descendents. These descendents append the honorific title of ‘Syed’ [literally, ‘master’], and claim divine and material privileges.

Pirs justify their superiority on a similar argument – they were given the light, and this light continues to radiate in their descendants. At a recital of the poetry of the radical Sufi Waris Shah held each year in Lahore, the descendents of Iman Bari Sarkar (a Pir) enter the arena to be received with awe and sought for blessings by the crowd. The recital stops and they are escorted to the front and seated. All eyes are on these holy men who are not only descendents of a Pir but also Syeds – thus, doubly blessed with ‘light’! And then they begin expounding their ideology: “We the Syeds get different treatment from God Almighty, for our good deeds we get double the reward compared to ‘murids’ [non-Syeds] who only get single reward for a single good deed … but, it’s not easy to be a Syed … [he laughs] … we have to suffer double the punishment for our any wrong deeds whereas you [non-Syeds] get only single punishment for a single wrong deed!”

There you have it! Our holy man explains why he has a Land Cruiser jeep and “non-Syeds” have donkey carts. He explains why most Pakistanis are living in poverty while he and his Syeds and Pirs are lapping it up in luxury.

Contemporary Sufism is the ideology of Sindh’s landlords. It is the ideology that is used to uphold their wealth and despotism, and keeps millions in serfdom. A similar pattern is repeated throughout Pakistan. Given the lack of proportional representation and the vast inequality in power in each district between Pirs and the rest, it is almost always the case that elections flood parliament with Pirs/Syeds/landlords. The current Pakistani Prime Minister (Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani) and Foreign Minister (Makhdoom Shah Mehmood Qureshi) are examples. Both have the claim of being descended from Holy Pirs as the basis of their wealth and distinction. As a result, we cannot expect parliament to challenge inequity and injustice in Pakistan.

Parliamentarians know that lack of education, coupled with the obscurantism of contemporary Sufism, sustains their power. Like the British before them, the Americans don’t care about Pakistan’s growing multitude of serfs and the underclass, they don’t care whether the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Pakistan are deeply rooted in the cause of inequity and injustice in the country and part of the promotion of a system of starvation – a Sufism that tells people to take a blessing instead of demanding food, education, justice and liberty. Like the British, they will fund whoever furthers their interests. We, however, must care.

This is an article by Qalandar Bux Memon, editor of Naked Punch, from the The Samosa, a new UK-based politics, culture and arts journal, campaigning blog and website.

Oct 3, 2007

Justice and Resistance: A Tribute to Imam Ali

On this day, the 21st of Ramadhan, the day of Imam Ali's martyrdom, I would like to pay him a tribute through Dr. Ali Shariati's words.

In his speech, On the Plight of the Oppressed People, Shariati talks to the graves of those slaves who did not have any control over their lives and who were killed while building the "great" pyramids for the false glory of the kings of the time. Shariati expresses his deep pain for all the people who were oppressed throughout history, under one form of oppression or another, and even after their death, when they were erased from the pages of history altogether. Shariati sees Imam Ali as one such person, who faced the oppression, yet who stood up for justice and truth and ultimately sacrificed his life for this cause.

"My friend, I am living thousands of years after you. Witnessing all the suffering of my friends, I began to feel that the "gods" hated the slaves. Religion seemed to reinforce the slavery system. Even people more intelligent than us, like Aristotle, theorized that, by nature, some people were born to be slaves and others to be rulers. I began to believe that I was born and destined to slavery.

Amidst all of this hopelessness, I learned that a man had descended down from the mountains saying, "I have been commissioned by God." I trembled thinking that it possibly involved a new deception or new method of cruelty. He stated, "I have been commissioned by God who has promised to have mercy on slaves and those who are weak on earth." Surprise! I still could not believe it. How could it be true? God was speaking with slaves, giving them good news of being saved, and prosperous, and being heirs of the earth.

I had doubts, thinking that he was also one of those prophets of China, India, and etc. His name was Mohammed, I was told that he was an orphan who was a shepherd behind those mountains. I was so surprised. Why did God choose His prophet from among shepherds ? I was also informed that his predecessors were prophets; all were chosen from among shepherds. He was the last in that series. With joy and astonishment, I became speechless and trembled. Has God chosen His prophet from among our class ?

I began to follow him because I saw my friends around him. Some of those who became leaders of his followers were: Bilal, a slave and son of a slave whose parents were from Abyssinia, Salman, a homeless person from Persia owned as a slave, Abu-Zar the poverty stricken and anonymous fellow from the desert, and lastly, Salim, the slave of the wife of Khudhaifa and an unimportant black alien.

I believed in the prophet Mohammed since his palace was no more than just a few rooms constructed of clay. He was among the workers who carried the loads and built the rooms. His court was made of wood and palm-tree leaves. This was everything he had. This was his palace.

I fled from Persia and the ruling system of the Mobedans who pushed us as slaves into war to protect their power and rule from their enemies. I escaped and came to the Prophet's country to live with the slaves, the homeless, the helpless, and with him. But when he died, "his eyelids under the heaviness of death, curtained our shining sun." Once more, the situation began to deteriorate.

My friend, again in his name, magnificent temples rose toward the sky. Swords engraved with the Quranic verses on holy war were pointed toward us. His representatives stepped into our homes and took our youth as slaves for the chieftains of their tribes, sold our mothers in distant markets, killed our men in the name of struggle in the way of God, and looted our belongings in the name of charity.

In despair, I could do nothing! A power came into being which, with an appearance of monotheism, really hid idols in the worship-palaces of God! Tricky fires (a fire was holy in pre-Islamic Persia) were glowing. In the name of God's vicegerency and successorship of the prophets, the faces of the Pharoahs and those of the false saints joined hands. They began to strike at us in the name of law. Again, it was the yoke of slavery around our necks which promoted the construction of the Great Mosque of Damascus. The great contests to build splendid mosques, magnificent palaces, beautiful houses for the Caliphs in Damascus and the enactment of a thousand and one nights in Baghdad were all done at the expense of our blood and lives; but, this time it was pursued in the name of God! We thought there was no way to safety. Slavery and sacrifice were our unchangeable destinies!

Who was that man called Mohammad? Was his mission deceitful? Or are he (the prophet) and we being sacrificed in the system, a system in which we are decaying in prisons; witnessing the looting and destruction of our possessions and families, and being massacred ? ? ?

I do not know where to go! Where should I go? Should I go to the Mobedans (clergymen of Persia)? How could I return to those temples which were built to enslave me? Should I join those who claim to be examples of our national freedom but in essence are attempting to gain their inhuman privileges of the past? The mosques are no better than those temples!

I saw the swords which were engraved with verses on holy war. I saw the places for worship. I saw those who prayed. I saw the saintly faces who spoke in the name of spiritual leadership, the Caliphs, and the perservation of the Prophet's traditions. Nevertheless, collectively, they took us into SLAVERY! They, long before my time, put someone to the sword in a mosque. He was Ali, the son-in-law of that man of God (the prophet Mohammad). He was killed in a place where God was worshipped. He before me, and his family long before mine, were, like the suffering slaves of history, all destroyed. In the name of "charity," his house was looted before ours. The Quran long before it was used as an instrument to rob and exploit us, was raised on the swords to defeat Ali!

How strange! Five thousand years later, I found a man who spoke of God, not for the masters but for the slaves. He prayed but not to reach "Nirvana" nor to deceive people nor to unite with God (like the Persians). He prayed for the welfare and prosperity of mankind. I found a man for the whole world. He was a man of justice, one who was strong and disciplined enough to make his older brother the first subject. He was a man whose wife, the daughter of the prophet Mohammed, worked and suffered deprivation and starvation, during her lifetime as we did. I found a man whose children were the heirs of the red flag which throughout history belonged to our class.

My friend, I have sought refuge in this house which is built of clay due to my fears of the temples, pompous palaces that you know and were sacrificed for by formidable powers. The companions of the prophet are busy. The house is alone. His wife is dying while he is in the garden of Bani Najjar, working and telling God all about our misery. Fearing the terrifying temples, palaces and treasuries that have accumulated through our labor and blood, I have taken refuge in this house to mourn the sacrifices which were made!

My friend, all those who remained loyal to Ali belonged to our suffering class. He did not adopt his beautiful sermons (recorded in Nahjul-Balagha) in order to make excuses for our deprivation nor the excesses of those who seek power. They were adopted to educate and save us. He did not draw his sword to defend himself, his family, his race, nor to defend big powers. It was done to rescue us at all stages. He thinks better than Socrates, not for the sake of demonstrating mortal virtues of the noble classes in which slaves have no share, but for the sake of values which we possess. He was not an heir of the Pharoahs or those of similar class. He symbolized thoughts and considerations, not in closed libraries, schools, and academic centers like those who acquire knowledge, as an end in itself, living in the world of theories while remaining indifferent to the starving and suffering classes. His thoughts fly high and far. Simultaneously, his abstract thoughts and heart are transferred into sympathy at the sadness of an orphan's face. Concurrently, because he realizes God's greatness, while praying he does not pay attention to any suffering inflicted on his body by a daggar. However, because of oppression of a Jewish woman, he cries loud saying, "if a person dies because of this disgrace he should not be blamed!" He has excellent abilities to express himself, but never in the manner of one like Shahanama (a poet who praised kings) who makes no mention of our class except once in all of his sixty-thousand couplets.

My friend, at this time and in this community, we desperately need him. He is unlike the thinkers, philosophers and others who are either men of thoughts without action and struggle, or men of action without thoughts, wisdom, and piety. If we imagine someone beside him having all these qualities, perhaps he might not possess the tenderness of feeling, love and pure spirit. Perchance he might lack strong faith in God. He is a man whose essence is extended through all humanitarian dimensions. Like you and I, he works as a laborer. The same hands that recorded the glorious lines of divine guidance merge deep into the soil, tilling and fertilizing salty lands. He works for no one! While he makes water gush forth from the ground, his family looks at his work with joy. Before he and his wife rest, he declares, "good news for my heirs who will not have even one drop from this water as their share." My friend, he has made it a charity for you and me.

We need him. We need leadership like him. The civilizations, educational systems, and religions have made human beings into animals interested only in financial security or selfish and heartless worshippers or men of thought and reason who lack feeling, love and inspiration as well as knowledge, wisdom, and logic. But he is a man who combines all these dimensions in his persons. He is a leader of the working class and those who suffer. He is the expressing power who struggles for the well-being of the community. Sincerity, loyalty, patience, steadfastness, and the concepts of revolution and justice were the main features of his daily messages to the masses.

My friend, I live in a society where I face a system which controls half of the universe, maybe all of it. Mankind is being driven into a new stronghold of slavery. Although we are not in physical slavery, we are truely destined with a fate worse than yours! Our thoughts, hearts, and will powers are enslaved. In the name of sociology, education, art, sexual freedom, financial freedom, love of exploitation, and love of individuals, faith in goals, faith in humanitarian responsibilities and belief in one's own school of thought are entirely taken away from within our hearts! The system has converted us into empty pots which accommodate whatever is poured inside them!

Now, we in the name of party, blood, land, and system against system, undergo divisions so that each of us can be easily taken into service. His followers that is, the followers of his school of thought, are pushed to fight against one another. Why, under a global influence should they consider each other as enemies? One leaves his hands open in prayer while the other folds them together. One prostrates on a piece of clay while the other on a carpet. Fortunately less differentation is made now! Our thinkers are driven into exile; they have become guardians.

My friend, knowing that you were a slave, you could identify your master. You could endure the whip-lashed on your body. Why, how, and who made you slaves? We are facing the same destiny as yours, but unable to know why it exists. Who is making us slaves of this century? From where are we being invaded? Why are we submissive to misleading thoughts? Why are we engaged in worldly worships? Like animals, we have become victims of exploitation, even more so than your era and race!

We work for the systems, powers, machines and palaces which are maintained through our efforts. Riches are accumulated through our hard labor but our share is such a small portion; therefore, we are obliged to work the following day. We are more deprived than you! Cruelty and discrimination are more severe than that of your time!

My friend, Ali sacrificed his life for these considerations: School of Thought, Unity and Justice. It was evident in his twenty-three years of struggles and sacrifices to establish faith in the hearts of barbaric parties. It was evident in his twenty-five years of silence and endurance in order to preserve Islamic unity and save it from the dangers of the Roman and Persian empires. It was evident in his five years of work and suffering to achieve justice, using his sword to destroy hatred and liberate man. Though he was not able to achieve this, he managed to impart to us the meaning of the leadership of mankind and religion. He placed his life and the life of his family on these three slogans: School of Thought, Unity and Justice!"

THE WORLD IS THE BOOK OF GOD ALMIGHTY

I hope the readers were able to follow the ruminations in the previous six posts. The discussion started with the problem of ascertaining knowledge and culminated at outlining the Realistic Islamic Worldview.

Below I want to look at how this Realistic Islamic Worldview is presented by the Quran and how it may be applied to a few thematic issues, namely, On nature and its working, on human presence in this world, their relationship with God, and their interaction with their fellows. The Realistic perspective quite insightfully connects the natural laws, human volition, and Divine wisdom as part of the same reality. You don't need to have read the previous posts to follow the discussion here. Though, you would get the most out of it if you have read them.

To elaborate on these thematic points, I use the text from within the Quran, which is the most original and authentic source of Islamic teachings agreed upon by all Muslims. The exegesis technique adopted here may be called the 'hermeneutical circle,' which uses individual parts from the text to illuminate other parts in the same text. The individual parts are thus understood within the context of the whole text. The understanding of the whole text itself is built upon individual parts. Hence, the 'circle'. This approach does not make it impossible to interpret a text within its cultural, historical, and literary context. To my understanding, Allama Tabatabai has deployed similar techniques in his exegesis, Al-Mizan. On using thematic (topical) approach in the exegesis of the Quran, see Shaheed Sadr's discussion here.

In the beginning

Let’s begin with the story of creation in the Quran, which is rich with insightful metaphors and profound meanings.

Before the creation of Adam and Eve, God addresses all the angles, “I will create a vicegerent on earth.” The angels said, “Do you want to create a vindictive and mischievous creature to commit crime and bloodshed on earth, while we pray and glorify you?” But God said, “I know something you know not” (Quran 02:30). Note the trust endowed on humankind in Islam. From their very creation, Human beings were meant to go to earth, not as condemned sinners, but as God’s chosen representatives!

The Quran further tells us that humans are made of earth’s basest materials “clay” and “water”. But, at the same time they are possessors of “His Spirit” (32:7-9; 06:02; 21:30; 15:29; 38:72). The subtle reference to the material and spiritual composition is insightful in understanding human inclinations and desires.

Perhaps it was the material aspect that concerned the angels when they showed their apprehension about possible human conduct on earth. But humans were not meant to be merely material beings. They were to be the possessors and representatives of Divine attributes and perfection on earth including His knowledge, His creativity, His wisdom, His compassion, and His justice. Furthermore, material energies and desires in human beings have the potential to be channeled towards constructive ends.

With these talents and potentials, humankind has composed complex languages, built social relationships, and advanced rich cultures over the course of history. What more could add to human nobility, when the Quran describes the accomplishments of God’s vicegerent as signs of His Creativity and Magnificence!

“And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the variations in your languages and your colors: verily in that are Signs for those who know” (30:22).

“O mankind! We created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Surely, Allah is Knowing, Aware” (49:13, also see 25:54).

The World is the Book of God Almighty

Like human intellectual capacity and creative work, the work of nature is also an expression of His sagacity and wisdom. While referring to the laws governing the nature and universe, the Quran tells us that God created the universe with measure and balance (54:49; 35:13; 06:73), and the sun, the moon, the mountains, the trees are all “His Signs” that by following their natural course “bow down in worship” to God (55:03-08; 41:39; 22:18; 41:11; 84:01-05).

In Verse 22:05, the Quran uses technical terminology to illuminate the development of an embryo with terms like “sperm”, “clot”, and “morsel of flesh.” Also mentioned in the same verse is the natural effect of rain in stirring life from barren earth. However, the verse ultimately ties the scientific explanation of both formations of life to Divine Purpose and Creation.

In the realistic outlook that the Quran presents, the natural laws, their sustenance, and the gradual changes in the universe are all Signs of God, as seen in verse 02:164:

“Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that God sends down from the cloud, then gives life with it to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between the heaven and the earth, there are signs for those who understand.”

Science, thus, complements faith in Islam. The universe is governed by a system of causes and laws, and the human free will lies in the utilization of these laws. Indeed, it is with the exercise of this free will that humankind has developed new technologies and advanced civilizations.

Islam proactively encourages its followers to advance in knowledge and science. The Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) has said, “The search of knowledge is a duty on every Muslim, male or female.”

Justice and Human Free Will

The idea of human free will is further supported by the Islamic belief in the Day of Judgment (Qayamat). Humans come to this world without any burden of original sin or predestination. Their choices in this world shape their fate in the hereafter (76:1-3; 91:1-10).

On that day, they will be rewarded or punished on the basis of choices they made in the world (02:286; 76:03). Without such choice of action, an individual’s accountability on the Day of Judgment would be against God’s justice. But the Quran explicitly declares that “Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an atom” (04:40; also see 03:108; 16:90; 16:111).

“If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them” (04:124).

Society and History

With the same realistic logic and affirmation of human free will, the Quran explains injustice and corruption in the world as a consequence of individual and collective choices and actions of people in the present and the past (10:44; 03:117; 03:137; 09:70).

The Quran makes the followers responsible for the betterment of their society, which is part of their test in this world; after all, “God does not change the conditions of a people until they change themselves” (13:11 and 08:53; also see 06:34; 17:77; 33:62 where similar decrees for social change and trends of history are described as “His Words” and “His Sunnat” and are fundamentally tied to human actions and their consequences).

Thus, rather than presenting a fatalistic and unconcerned attitude toward this world and its miseries, Islam exhorts its followers to actively strive toward eradicating the social ills and injustices in society (09:71; 02:148; 04:135).

The Islamic society in the Quran is based on respect, harmony, justice, and responsibility. The Quran abhors disrespect and injustice in all social relationships, be they among family members, between opposite genders, or among different ethnic and national groups (04:135; 09:71; 30:21; 02:148; 49:09). According to the Quran, killing one innocent life is like killing the whole of humanity, and saving one human life is like saving the whole of humanity (05:32).

The Quran recognizes the diversity among human languages and cultures; however, it is against the use of such an identity for the assertion of false superiority by one group over another. In the Quranic outlook, human nobility lies is one’s piety, knowledge, and struggle in God’s way (30:22; 49:13; 2:31-34; 39:09; 16:110; 61:11).

In the End

From the above discussion, we see that Islam encompasses the ideals of human freedom and nobility. It points to the realities of His Signs, His Words, and His Sunnat in nature and history. It sets noble values and goals for humanity. And, it carries the ultimate Truth about the Creator of everything (03:83; 30:30). The word “Islam” means submission, and the first condition of being a Muslim is to submit to these ideals and truths.

Such is the realization expressed in the words of Imam Ali when he said, “My Lord! I did not worship you for fear of Hell nor for a desire of Paradise. Rather I found you worthy of worship.”

The ultimate drive, the ultimate meaning behind all human struggles in this world is to gain God’s Favor and to connect with Him, the Eternal (02:285; 84:06; 02:46: 29:2-5; 76:2-3; 35:18). After that connection, there is no end!

“Surely, to Allah we belong, and to Him is our return” (02:156).

Sources consulted:

- Allama Tabatabai Al-Mizan
- Murtaza Mutahhari Fundamentals of Islamic Thought: God, Man, and the Universe (Berkeley: Mizan Press, 1985)
- Murtaza Mutahhari Man and his Destiny
- Mohammad Baqir Sadr Trends of History in Quran
- Ali Shariati Man and Islam

Sep 16, 2007

From Our Philosophy (V): The Realistic Islamic Worldview

The question of worldview is important because it shapes our understanding of self, our interaction with the world, its Creator, and other fellow creations. Our understanding of the world relates to the subject matter of natural and social sciences as well as philosophy and religion. So, for example, in the field of natural sciences, we can ask, how should we approach natural sciences: As a study of objective laws independent of our subjective consciousness or as just our imaginations in mind? Similarly, in the field of social sciences, we can ask, are there any objective patterns or trends that could be found in human social organization and social transformations? Similarly, we can ask, what principles and values should govern our social interactions? What should be our relation to our natural environment? Are humans only mono-dimensional beings, with just material desires and needs? Is there any purpose of this world and our presence in it?

These are important questions for the evaluation of any social and moral system. Shaheed Sadr's aim in Our Philosophy and subsequent books, as discussed earlier, is to outline a social system based on Islamic principles. He therefore considers the discussion of worldview very essential. His approach throughout this and subsequent works has been to critically evaluate and de-construct the established discourses first and then make his constructive contribution informed by his understanding of Islamic principles and values as well as that of philosophy and history.

In the following I take passages from Our Philosophy (here) and supplement them with excerpts from Sadr's another book, Trends of History in Quran (here). You will notice that the discussion done in Part I of Our Philosophy - on the possibility of knowledge through Rational Induction - was necessary so that in Part II Sadr could lay out the salient features of a Realistic Islamic worldview.

The Realistic Islamic Worldview

A) It is a false dilemma to assume that there are only two possible worldviews, the Idealistic and the Materialistic. The Idealistic view, particularly the theological idealism, accords all natural and social occurrences a hidden and divine aspect and interprets them superhumanly. The Materialistic view on the other hand says that nature and history can be fully understood without attributing the real cause to any superhuman factor, and hence God is irrelevant to scientific investigations/explanations.

B) The Realistic worldview asserts that "every phenomenon in life and nature is governed by the causative system and comes into being as the result of a sequence of causes and effects. This sequence exists everywhere in this world. For example, we take into consideration the case of the boiling of water in a kettle. It is a natural phenomenon which depends on certain conditions such as a particular degree of temperature and the nearness of the kettle to fire to a particular extent. This is the case of a sequence of a cause and its effect and a relationship of the present and the past in prearranged conditions."

Causatives also work in the domain of society and history. However, a distinguishing feature here is the intention/consciousness that is involved in the actions of the social actors. The working of nature, like the orbital movement of earth and moon, on the other hand, does not require that consciousness or intention on its part.

The effects of human actions on social and historical course depend, to a considerable extent, on the intentions behind them. This is where human volition/agency and subjectivity (basic instincts, material drives, beliefs and values, culture) become very important.

And related to human agency, there is Divine intervention into history through Prophets and Revelation. Human agency lies in their response to the Divine intervention, if they accept and act upon the message or not. Then there is also the role of direct Divine inspiration in the hearts of human beings, especially those who call upon Him in their supplication, in their intentions and actions. Further, God is not just the creator of all existence and the laws governing it, but He is also its sustainer. Meaning that He is not like a watchmaker who, once the automatic watch is made, is not needed anymore for the watch to function. Rather, the reality, the existence, matter and beyond, all are actively sustained through God's continuous provision in the Islamic perspective.

What is important to note here is that in the realistic Islamic worldview, all phenomena of the world, even miracles, are governed by certain objective principles; they are not beyond the causative logic. It affirms the possibility of a metaphysical/spiritual dimension to the world with norms and laws that are inter-related to the laws in the material dimensions. Furthermore, that humans can have access to these spiritual laws and norms just like they have access to those for the material dimensions. In fact, the Quran considers the governing principles of both natural and historical relams as well as spiritual dimensions all as part of the same reality and calls them God's "word", "sunnat", and "signs" in different contexts.

With regards to norms of history, for example, Sadr states: "...the Qur'an lays stress is the divinity of these laws and norms. Historical norms are divine in the sense that they have been appointed by Allah. The Qur'an has described them as Allah's words also. In other words every law of history is Allah's words. It is a divine rule. In order to promote man's dependence on Allah the Qur'an lays stress on the divinity and the sacred character of the historical norms. Man can enjoy the fruits of nature only with Allah's help. If he wants to enjoy the entire system of the world, he must act according to the natural laws and norms, for Allah operates His power through these norms which represent His will, wisdom and guidance."

(Trends of History in Quran, Lecture 6, "Field in which Norms of History Operate")

Further, according to Sadr, ‘the success of any activity involving social change depends upon certain concrete conditions and circumstances, and its objective cannot possibly be achieved unless these conditions and circumstances are realized’. Sadr makes a distinction between individual actions and ‘historical actions’. Humans can initiate individual actions, but for these actions to produce the desired effect on historical course, they need to be done through understanding the dynamics and limitations of external social conditions. Just like, how in the natural environment, Humans can bring about effective change (only) by understanding the laws that govern it.

C) The difference between the realistic and materialistic worldviews lies in this question: " 'If we accept an objective reality of the world, do we stop with objectivity at the limit of sensible matter, which would thus be the common cause of all the phenomena of existence and being, including the phenomena of consciousness and knowledge; or do we seep beyond it to a further cause, an eternal and an infinite cause, as the primary cause of what we know of the world, including both its spiritual and its material realms?' "

(Our Philosophy, Part II, Chapter One)

D) The Realistic worldview (also called theological realism) "accepts an external reality of the world and nature. Both spirit and matter, according to this notion, are attributed to a cause beyond the world and nature. "

E) "The theological notion of the world does not mean dispensing with natural causes or rebelling against any one of the sound scientific truths. Rather, it is the notion that considers God as a cause beyond [nature]. It imposes on the chain of agents and causes an ascent to a power above nature and matter. With this, opposition between it and any scientific truth is completely removed. The reason for this is that it gives science the widest opportunity for discovering the mysteries and order of nature.

At the same time, in the last analysis, it retains for itself the theological explanation which is the positing of a higher cause in a principle above nature and matter. Hence, the theological issue is not as its opponents wish to claim - namely, an issue concerning an invisible hand that sprinkles water in the atmosphere, that conceals the sun from us, or that acts as an obstacle between us and the moon, thus creating rain, a sun eclipse, or a moon eclipse. If science reveals the causes of rain and the factors leading to its evaporation; and further, if science also reveals the causes of the sun's eclipse, and [if] we know that the celestial spheres are not equidistant from the earth, that the moon is closer to them than to the sun, and that it happens that the moon passes between the earth and the sun, thus concealing the sun's light from us; again; if science reveals the cause of the moon's eclipse, which is the passing of the moon in the shadow of the earth - this shadow extends behind the earth for around 900,000 miles - I say that if this information is available to a human being, then those materialists will imagine that the theological issue will no longer have a subject, and the invisible hand, which conceals from us the sun or the moon, is substituted for by the natural causes given by science.

However, this is only due to the misunderstanding of the theological issue, and to the undifferentiation of the place of the theological cause in the chain of causes."

(Our Philosophy, Part II, Chapter One)

F) "...the Qur'an does not accord a hidden aspect to an event to sever its connection with everything else and attribute it direct to Allah. The Qur'an recognizes the existence of mutual relationship between various historical events in this world, but according to it this relationship is an expression of the wisdom and sagacity of Allah in regard to the creation and management of this world including the field of historical events.

To make this point clear and to illustrate the two points of view in this respect, we can use the following example:

Sometimes a man may say that it rains by the will of Allah. In this case he puts Allah's will in the place of natural causes as if he thinks that rain is a phenomenon which has no connection with any other happening and is directly attributable to Allah. This explanation of rain is different from its scientific explanation. Accordingly another man may say that the phenomenon of rain requires some cause and it is connected with other natural event. In fact there is a natural cycle of different forms of water. Water evaporates and converts into gas. Gases ascend and form clouds. The clouds gradually come down and with a change in temperature, again convert into liquid and rain. This series of natural events again represents Allah's wisdom and His good management of the affairs of the world, and there is no contradiction between the two explanations, although in the first explanation the mundane causes of the phenomenon have been ignored and the phenomenon has been attributed direct to Allah.

That is why the Qur'an, while according the norms of history a divine aspect, does not interpret history superhumanly alone. It only lays stress on the fact that the norms of history are not beyond the scope of the power of Allah. Their materialization depends on His will. Laws of nature are the words of Allah, His method and an embodiment of His will and wisdom in the world. They are meant to remind man to be always conscious of his dependence on Allah so that there may exist a close link between science and faith and man may look at scientific phenomena with the conviction of his faith in Allah.

The Qur'an believes in the basicity of the norms of history and does not regard any event as accidental. In many cases it considers even supernatural events to be subservient to the norms of history and not mere chance happenings. Accordingly even divine help is governed by the laws of history. In other words it is received only in appropriate conditions. In this sensitive spiritual field also the Qur'an insists on basing the interpretation of history on logic, reason and science, and not on unplanned aid. According to this interpretation divine help must be in conformity with the laws of history."

(Trends of History in Quran, Lecture 5, "Norms of History in the Quran")

G) "As for 'spiritualism' in the theological sense, or in the theological doctrine, it is a method of viewing reality as a whole, and not as a specific realm opposite the material realm. Hence, the theology that asserts a supernatural, immaterial cause also asserts a link between all that exists in the general realm - be that spiritual or material - and the supernatural cause. It believes that this link is one in whose light the human practical- and social position regarding all things must be determined. Spiritualism in the theological sense is a method for comprehending reality. It is equally applicable to the material realm and to the spiritual realm in the idealistic sense."

(Our Philosophy, Part II, Chapter One)

H) "... materialism is a philosophical tendency, as is theology. We do not have scientific or experimental materialism; for science, as we have learned, does not affirm the materialistic notion of the world in order that materialism be scientific. Rather, all the truths and secrets that science discloses about the sphere of nature leave room for the assumption of a cause above matter. Scientific experimentation cannot prove, for example, that matter is not created by an immaterial cause, or that the forms of movement and the kinds of development which science has discovered in the various aspects of nature are self-sufficient and not produced by a cause above the limits and sphere of experimentation. The same is true of every scientific truth. Therefore, the proof in support of materialism cannot be based on scientific truths or direct sense experience. Rather, it is formulated in a philosophical interpretation of those truths and experiences, precisely as is the proof in support of theology."

(Our Philosophy, Part II, Chapter One)

I) "The ... question is as follows: 'If scientific experimentation is not sufficient by itself for demonstrating the theological and the materialistic notions alike, then is it possible for the human mind to find evidence for any of the two notions, since both of them lie outside the realm of experimentation, or must the mind yield to skepticism, to freeze the theological and materialistic issue, and to limit itself to the fruitful field of science?'

The answer is that human intellectual capacity is sufficient for studying this issue and for commencing with respect to it from experimentation itself, not by considering experimentation as a direct proof for the notion which we form about the world, but as a starting point. Thus, the proper philosophical notion of the world - the theological notion - will be posited by the independent rational information in light of the interpretation of experiments and the experimental phenomena.

No doubt the reader remembers our study in the first investigation concerning the theory of knowledge of the rational doctrine, and how we demonstrated the presence of independent rational knowledge in a way that shows that the addition of rational knowledge to sense experience is something necessary not only with respect to our philosophical issue but also with respect to all scientific issues. There is no scientific theory that rests on a purely empirical basis. Rather, it rests on the basis of sense experience and in light of independent rational knowledge. Therefore, our philosophical issue that investigates the supernatural world does not differ from any scientific issue that investigates one of the natural laws, or that reveals some natural powers (p. 217) or secrets. In all of this, sense experience is the point of departure. But in spite of that, sense experience is in need of a rational explanation if a philosophical or a scientific truth is to be inferred from it."

(Our Philosophy, Part II, Chapter One)

Sep 15, 2007

From Our Philosophy (IV): The Logic of Science

Students of natural and social sciences should find the passage quoted from Our Philosophy in this post especially insightful.

Let me start off with a quick summary of what has been discussed so far. We have discussed Descartes' particular version of Rationalism, which is based on his Cartesian Method of doubt, also Hume's Empiricism, and then Berkeley's Idealism in the previous posts. It may be appropriate now to discuss the logic of scientific research in Shaheed Sadr's view.

That is, how do we obtain and ascertain knowledge about nature and its laws. In Sadr's view, the logic of scientific research is based on rational induction (see below). What is interesting about this discussion of rational induction is that it is applicable to both natural and social sciences, as we see that in the later chapters of Our Philosophy under the heading of a Realistic outlook of the world. In fact, Shaheed Sadr further expands this rational-realistic logic in his two other books, namely 'The Logical Foundation of Induction' (here, but translation not very good) and 'The Revealer, the Messenger, The Message' (here), to layout a unifying, common logic of scientific research in religious, social, and natural sciences. I will write more on the realistic worldview in my next post, inshallah.

What is this rational induction and how is it different from a purely materialist, sense perception/experiment based induction, here is what Shaheed Sadr says:

"We conclude from this that the empirical doctrine unavoidably leads to the elimination of the principle of causality and to the failure of demonstrating necessary relations between things. But if the principle of causality is eliminated, all the natural sciences will collapse, since they depend on it, as you will know.

The natural sciences, which the empiricists seek to establish on the basis of pure experimentation, are themselves in need of primary rational principles that are prior to experimentation. This is because the scientist carries out his experiment in his laboratory on limited objective particulars. Then he puts forward a theory for explaining the phenomena that the experiment in the laboratory had disclosed, and for justifying them by one common cause. This is exemplified in the theory that states that the cause of heat is motion, on the basis of a number of experiments interpreted in this way. It is our right to ask the natural scientist about how he offers this theory as a universal law applicable to all circumstances resembling those of the experiment, even though the experiment did not apply except to a number of specific things. Is it not the case, then, that this generalization is based on a principle stating that similar circumstances and things alike in kind and reality must share in laws and decrees? Here, once again, we inquire about how the mind reached this principle. The empiricists cannot claim that it is an empirical principle. Rather, it must be a piece of rational knowledge that is prior to experimentation. The reason is that if it were supported by experimentation, then the experimentation on which this principle is based also, in turn, treats only specific subjects. How, then, can a general principle be based on it? Thus, the establishment of a general principle or a universal law in light of one or more experiments cannot be accomplished except after admitting prior rational knowledge.

With this, it becomes clear that all the empirical theories in the natural sciences are based on a number of pieces of rational knowledge that are not subject to experimentation. Rather, the mind accepts them immediately. They are the following:

1. The principle of causality, in the sense of the impossibility of chance. That is, if chance were possible, then it would not be possible for the natural scientist to reach a common explanation of the numerous phenomena that appear in his experimentation.

2. The principle of harmony between cause and effect. This principle states that things that in reality are similar necessarily depend on a common cause.

3. The principle of non-contradiction that asserts that it is impossible for negation and affirmation to be true simultaneously.

If the scientist accepts these pieces of knowledge that are prior to experimentation, and then carries out his various experiments on the kinds and divisions of heat, he can, in the last analysis, postulate a theory for explaining the different kinds of heat by one cause, such as motion, for example. On the whole, it is not possible to postulate this theory as a decisive and an absolute one. The reason is that it can be such only if it is possible for one to be certain of the absence of another explanation of those phenomena, and of the incorrectness of explaining them by another cause. However, in general, this is not determined by experiments. That is why the conclusions of the natural sciences are, for the most part, presumptive, due to a deficiency in experiments, and to an incompleteness in the conditions that make them decisive experiments.

It becomes clear to us from what has preceded that the inference of a scientific conclusion from an experiment is always dependent on syllogistic reasoning in which the human mind moves from the general to the specific, and from the universal to the particular, exactly as viewed by the rational doctrine. The scientist is able to draw the conclusion in the above example by moving from the already mentioned three primary principles (the principle of causality, the principle of harmony, and the principle of non-contradiction) to that specific conclusion in accordance with the syllogistic approach.

Regarding the objection raised by the empiricists against the method of syllogistic reasoning- namely, that the conclusion in it is nothing but an echo of one of the two premises, that is, the major premise, and a repetition of it- it is a bad objection, according to the teachings of the rational doctrine. This is because if we intended to demonstrate the major premise by experiments, and had no other criterion, then we would have to examine all the divisions and kinds, in order to be certain of the soundness of the judgment. The conclusion then would have been also determined in the major premise itself. But if the major premise were a piece of rational knowledge, which we grasp without need of experiments, such as the primary intuitive propositions and the rational theories that are derived from such propositions, then he who seeks to demonstrate the major premise does not need to examine the particulars so that the conclusion is necessitated to take on the quality of repetition and reiteration.

Once again, we assert that we do not deny the great value of experience for humanity and the extent of its service in the fields of knowledge. However, we wish to make the empiricists understand that experiments are not the primary criterion and the fundamental source of human thought and knowledge. Rather, the primary criterion and the fundamental source are rational primary information, in whose light we acquire all other information and truths. Even experience itself is in need of such a rational criterion. Thus, we and others alike are required to admit this criterion on which the principles of our metaphysical philosophy are based. If, after that, the empiricists attempt to deny this criterion in order to falsify our philosophy, they would be, at the same time, attacking the principles that are the foundation of the natural sciences, and without which the empirical experience is completely fruitless.

In light of the rational doctrine, we can explain the quality of necessity and absolute certainty that distinguish mathematics from the propositions of the natural sciences. This distinction is due to the fact that the necessary mathematical laws and truths are supported by the primary principles of the mind, and do not depend on the discoveries of experiments. The scientific propositions are contrariwise. Thus, the expansion of iron due to heat is not one of the propositions that are given by those principles with no mediation, but is based on experimental propositions. The decisive rational character is the secret of the necessity and absolute certainty in the mathematical truths."

Source: Our Philosophy by Baqir Sadr. Trans. Shams C. Inati. See part I chapter I "The Primary Source of Knowledge."

From Our Philosophy (III): To Exist is to Know - Really?

How Can We Be Sure Of What We Know?

You may have seen a very absorbing presentation by the popular Turkish scholar, Harun Yahya, entitled “Secret Beyond Matter” (see here). And you might have noticed a similarity between his argument and the one presented by the idealist philosopher George Berkeley (A.D. 1685-1753), who argued that, philosophically speaking, we are incapable of proving the existence of any reality outside of our minds. I am sympathetic to Harun Yahya’s overall project – of pushing modern science and humanities to expand their intellectual horizon and of promoting general Islamic education through creative media – but regarding this particular issue I did not find him very convincing. I believe that the criticism that Shaheed Baqir al-Sadr (A.D. 1935-1980) made against Berkeley’s Philosophical Idealism in his wonderful book, Our Philosophy (see here), also applies to Harun Yahya’s argument. Below, I do not get into the specifics of Yahya’s presentation; I only discuss the overall framework of his argument that I believe is very close to philosophical idealism. I do encourage you to watch his presentation. Later in this piece, I touch upon the implications that this theory may have on our understanding of ourselves and the things that happen around us.

‘I Think, Therefore I Exist’ - Really?

First, let me discuss Rene Descartes (A.D. 1596-1650) because Harun Yahya starts his presentation by posing a problem similar to that of Descartes. That is, can we distinguish a dream from reality? In other words, how do we really know if any thing exists outside of our brains when we do not have a direct ‘touch’ with the essence of that outside world except through the signals that our physical senses send to our brains? For illustration, Descartes uses a piece of wax which is exposed to heat: We get different perceptions, different feelings, of its solid and liquid states through our five physical senses, but the actual ‘thing’ that is changing its physical state with changing temperature, we do not have a direct access to that essence or existence. Descartes pushes the argument further and poses a scenario: What if there is no reality out there and all that we consider to be reality are just signals artificially created and sent to our brains. For the purpose of illustration, imagine the mechanistic web or system in the movie, The Matrix, where individual brains were fed with signals suggesting an artificial, virtual reality. What if there is just one brain imagining all of that virtual experience? How can we be sure of what we know about reality?

Descartes’ thesis builds upon his famous Cartesian method of doubt, in which he becomes skeptical about the truth of all of his beliefs, not taking any reality for granted. From this point zero, he constructs an argument for, first, his own existence, then God, and all other external reality. The very famous argument, cogito ergo sum, “I think, therefore I exist” was proposed in this process. However, this argument has some serious logical flaws. In Our Philosophy, al-Sadr argues that Descartes pre-supposes the ‘individual being’ who is doing the thinking and also pre-supposes the ‘law of causality’ as an objective reality through the application of which Descartes connects the action of ‘thinking’ to the individual ‘being’. Al-Sadr states that Ibne Sina, or Avicenna (A.D. 980-1037), already presented this argument and criticized it “as being unfit as a method of scientific evidence for the existence of the human thinker himself” a few centuries prior to Descartes.

Descartes may not have been very successful at the solution, but the problem and the method of doubting reality that he constructed became quite popular, especially with the skeptics. Harun Yahya uses such a skeptic argument at the beginning of his presentation to problematize the empiricist scientific method or the material-istic theory of knowledge. The empiricist method presumes material objects to have an objective reality with real substance and governing laws. Following Descartes, Harun Yahya also argues that we cannot be sure of their existence. The alternative theory of knowledge that Yahya presents is very similar to Berkeley’s Idealism, and equally problematic.

‘To Exist Is To Know’ – Perhaps Not!

Now, let me discuss Berkeley’s Idealism, however, at the risk of simplifying it too much. Like Descartes, Berkeley questions our ability to know and validate any reality outside of our individual minds. He gives an illustration on the following line: Take two buckets of water, one with very hot and the other with very cold water. Put one hand in the hot, the other in the cold water. Now put both hands in a third bucket with water at room temperature. Each hand will feel different temperature of the same water because of its previous experience: the water will appear cold to the hot hand, and hot to the cold hand. But, is the water in the third bucket really hot and cold at the same time? On the basis of this apparent contradiction in sense perception, Berkeley argues that we cannot rely on the validity of our senses and any scientific knowledge built upon them. This is yet another construction of the skeptic argument, similar to Descartes’. Al-Sadr points out that Berkeley even goes to the extent of denying the objective existence of water when he draws out that contradiction in his little experiment. For him water is nothing but a name that we give to our sense perceptions.

To resolve this skeptic problem, Berkeley presents his Idealistic theory of knowledge. For Berkeley, ‘To exist is to know, or to be known.’ Existence of a thing has a different meaning in his philosophy, which is basically the idea or knowledge of that thing in our mind or soul. The source of that knowledge is God, who causes this idea or knowledge in our minds. Berkeley is vague in what exactly does he mean by ‘existence’, but if we try to understand his philosophy by reading it in its extreme idealistic terms, reality is but a continuous creation of perceptions or knowledge in our mind caused by God. Harun Yahya also appears to be arguing the same thing in his presentation.

But the fact that there can be error in the way we perceive nature does not automatically mean that nature does not exist. Rather, it is the fault of our sense perception and perhaps also of our inductive reasoning if we are not able to reconcile the different temperatures we get from the same water. In fact, the contradiction itself can be an argument to prove that there is an external reality (water) outside of our mind from which we are receiving mixed sense perceptions. While making this point, al-Sadr goes into a lengthy discussion on the problems with Berkeley’s theory in the second chapter of his book, under the sub-heading “Philosophical Idealism”. Al-Sadr’s solution to the skeptic argument is a Realistic Theory of Knowledge which is different from both a narrow empiricist (material-istic) epistemology – quite prevalent in modern science today – as well as philosophical Idealism. Al-Sadr elaborates this theory further, particularly its application in the domain of history and society, in his book, Trends of History in Quran (See here). The Realistic theory of knowledge accepts the possibility of an external world outside of individual minds along with its natural and metaphysical laws. It is also open to the possibility of vast and limitless realities beyond the material dimensions of the universe. I highly recommend you to read these two works for details.

Flawed Logic – So What?

Let me discuss a couple of problematic implications of philosophical idealism. This, I hope, will also highlight the relevance of this debate, especially for the students of science and humanities.

Consider the following illustration. You may have seen the movie, The Matrix. Recall the scene in which Neo meets a young boy who bends the spoon by changing the idea or knowledge of that spoon in his (boy’s) mind; Neo also sees this change. If reality only exists in one’s mind then the spoon should only bend for the young boy. But since Neo also sees this, then either Neo is also part of that young boy’s imagination and therefore the boy is able to manipulate Neo’s perceptions, or the two are experiencing a collective dream, but which has some objective dynamics and existence, outside of their individual minds, and the boy is merely manipulating those dynamics through his mind power. However, in case one argues that Neo is also part of the young boy’s imagination, this leads to a philosophical position known as Solipsism, which states that ‘the only thing that exists is my mind’ or ‘my mind is the only thing that I know for sure exists.’ Even God becomes merely a proposition – some would say, a mental construction – in this philosophical position. I believe that Berkeley and Harun Yahya both fall into this philosophical trap in their proposed theory of knowledge.

A very basic question that could be asked to the Idealists is that if we eliminate ‘I’ or ‘consciousness’ from the equation, does that mean the whole existence would not exist any more? Is that the right way to think about reality for the purpose of building our scientific and historical knowledge? Albert Einstein once said that “I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.” But, following Berkeley and Yahya, if we assume that reality does not have an objective existence, we may not be able to study it from the perspective of objective nature and laws. The idealist theory of knowledge also does not provide an independent criterion to distinguish true propositions from false propositions we may have in our minds; for example, the idea of God vs. the idea of a pink unicorn. Hence Berkeley’s idealism doesn’t help much either in solving the skeptic problem of validating knowledge.

Consider another implication. God, no doubt, is the ultimate explanation for all occurrences in the world. God is the originator and sustainer of all creation. But the Idealistic perspective does not give us any objective criterion to differentiate between various occurrences, so we can increase our systematic knowledge of science and history, something toward which the Quran frequently draws attention of those who reflect (see, for instance, verses 2:164, 88:17-20, 7:185, and 50:6 in the Qur’an).

For example, the tragic Katrina and the catastrophic earthquake in the Iranian city of Bam both may have happened because God allowed, or caused, them to happen. But can we move beyond this general statement to understand how Katrina and Bam may have similar or different natural and/or meta-physical causes. Does the idealistic perspective give us any direction? And, further, can we demand an objective criterion or test from those idealists who like to call Katrina a wrath of God but consider the Bam earthquake as just a natural occurrence. (Or, those for whom both were punishments of God. Or, those for whom both were just natural occurrences, albeit caused by God). Granted, many times calamities befall on people because of their wrong doings. This general statement or metaphysical law is endorsed by the Quran. However, this statement by itself cannot prove that a specific calamity in a certain area happened as a form of punishment from God. The calamity could very well have been an effect of a natural process (the strain caused by underground tectonic plates, for example. Granted, the calamity could still be interpreted as a punishment. But it could also be a form of God’s test on a people. And there can be many more such interpretations). The idealistic perspective does not help much with making any such scientific or discursive distinctions. The realistic perspective at least would not allow any blank statements to be taken as decisive explanations, even if it may not always explain the meta-physical dimensions of such natural calamities.

The idealistic philosophy is similarly unsatisfactory for expanding our knowledge of physics, biology, medicine, criminology, historiography, and philosophy. Philosophical idealism has a certain attraction for some Sufi leaning philosophies. But this theory of knowledge does not take us very far in terms of developing a unified perspective of reality (material and non-material) and advancing human knowledge and capacities.

For a comparison of the Idealistic and the Realistic perspectives on the topic of ‘fate and destiny,’ see Shaheed Murtaza Mutahhari’s book, Man and His Destiny (see here). On biological evolution, see Mutahhari’s The Quran and the Nature of Life (here) and Shaheed M. Hosseini Behishti and Shaheed M. Javad Bahonar’s Philosophy of Islam (here). You may also want to read Allama Muhammad Hussain Tabatabai’s marvelous book, ‘Usoole Falsifae va Ravish-e-Realism’ (The Principles of Philosophy and the Method of Realism), available in Farsi.