Men have long argued over the authority
that human intellect has in relation to the Divine. The Greek philosophers are
known to have impressed upon man’s ability to use logic and thus, make rational
decisions. These philosophers endeavoured to induce men to not only use his
intellect regarding affairs pertaining to the material world but also to the
metaphysical one. A lot of social sciences built up their premises over man’s
rationality alone. Essentially, this idea gradually crept into and influenced
the understanding of many a Muslim scholar. Some of them, however, rejected the
very idea of rationalism; they discovered an ingenious and supernatural source
for making sense of the ‘reality’—Ilham (inspiration). Still another group,
however, adopted a reasonable approach by not over-estimating their fragile
intellect, as concerns its understanding of the workings of the Divine and thus,
they effectively confined themselves to rely on the Divine Scriptures to
comprehend how the Divine partakes in human life.
Imam Ghazali’s Point of View
According to Imam Ghazali, the
rationality that abounds and obsesses many intellectuals is acceptable, but only
as relative to the senses. These are, in turn, subject to the necessary truths,
provided by the Divine inspirations – a presentation of ‘rationality’ which
restrains man’s intellect with the manacles of inspirations. He is reported to
have written in his autobiography, ‘Deliverance from Error’:
With regard to sense-perception I
noticed that the sense of sight tells me that the shadow cast by the gnomon of a
sundial is motionless; but later observation and reflection shows that it moves,
and that it does not do so by jerks but by a constant steady motion. This sense
tells me that the sun is the size of a coin, but astronomical proofs show that
it is larger than the earth. Thus sense makes certain judgements, and then
reason comes and judges that they are false.
Understanding this in the light of his
life’s mission, that is, to look for the ‘knowledge of what things really are,’
his objective of delving deeper into the reality also gives us an insight into
the evolutionary processes that his life and belief must have been groomed
under. Beginning with philosophy and ending with Sufism, Ghazali sought to
explain the difference between ‘inspiration’ and ‘reason’. He would eventually
assert, on the basis of his own mystical experiences, that inspiration from the
Divine, together with reason could open for men, a world of ‘infallible truths’,
previously unattainable through reason alone. He, thus, ended up giving supreme
superiority to the divine inspirations over the reasoning faculty of man, not to
mention the five senses. It was to him, as if, a light had been cast into his
breast by God Almighty – a light enabling him to realise greater Truths.
Sir Sayyad Ahmad Khan’s Point of View
Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, on the other hand, completely
rejected this dependence of scientific proof and rationality on intuition. He
questioned how two contradicting reports of mystic experiences could be accepted
altogether. One had to be right, and for that, no intuition would help as it was
intuition itself that bore the responsibility of the paradox. In his opinion,
thus, the contradiction of the reports of mystic experience is proverbial. What
criterion is there by which we can determine which of them are true and which
false? Naturally, we have nothing else but reason to decide the matter’.
Reason was advocated by Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan in the sense
of empirical faculty in all affairs of faith, belief and action. He called this
human reasoning, ‘Aql-i-Qulli’, meaning, a decisively supreme authority. While
Ghazali seems to be fearful of mathematical and physical proofs for their
capacity to cause deviation among Muslims to the extent of denial of God’s
attributes, Sir Sayyid appears to be determined to join the ranks of men like
Jamal’ul Din Afghani in supporting scientific proof. He found himself absolutely
serious in the validity of empiricism and pragmatism of ideas and beliefs, and
advocated science and rational thinking in his reformative endeavours. He is
quoted to have declared:
I am fully convinced that the Work of God and the Word of
God can never be antagonistic to each other; we may through the fault of our
knowledge sometimes make mistakes in understanding the meaning of the Word.
According to him: ‘It is that inherent capacity in man by
which he draws conclusions on the basis of the observation of objective
phenomena or mental thinking processes.’
The Author’s Inclination
If I were to act in an absolutely rational manner, without
consciously taking into consideration any Divine source, I would ironically be
inclined to accept that both reason and innate inclinations (the God-given a
priori considerations, which one cannot seem to part with) would help me make
the right decision in matters of faith, rituals and life in general.
Alternately, if I were to make reason subordinate to something, I would choose
God’s Scripture and His guidance therein, as that ‘something’, again,
ironically, without any Ilham (inspiration), as suggested by Ghazali, to be a
decisive authority. Both such approaches would be subject to criticism by
different scholars of Islam. However, all would agree, and very rightly so, that
the Qur’an and Sunnah alone can help us establish a view most authentic in terms
of its acceptability by God Almighty.
When the believer recites the Surah Fatihah, he asks Allah
for true guidance. Allah answers in the very next Surah that the Qur’an is the
source of such guidance, the pre-requisite to which is a sincere and eager
heart, which is rich with faithful intent. This faithful intent involves Iman
bi’l-Ghayb (faith in the Unseen) that, by its very literal implications, cannot
be proven, and thus, finds absolute trust in empirical reasoning much wanting.
Thus, science and human reason alone, cannot be deemed enough to understand all
truths, nor indeed, to acknowledge the Truth, as it deserves to be acknowledged.
The Qur’an does, nevertheless, invite its readers to
indulge in observing nature, exploiting it to their benefits by all legal means,
of which the result is prosperity.
That this can be achieved through empirical reasoning cannot be denied. And that
such advancements and observations help appreciate the connected and intertwined
fabric of this universe make realisation of the Creator much more achievable has
been proven to man during various stages in history. In yesteryears, Muslim rule
and society prospered in places like Baghdad and Spain due to this very
inclination of its people. But at the end of it all, it needs to be acknowledged
that this drive towards studying nature, doing research work, and indulgence in
empirical tests by the Muslim world was all because of the ambition that the
Divine Word stimulated. Innovative ideas like the digging up of trenches in the
Prophet’s times too were a result of this stimulation. Muslims had to take the
world along with them, with the ultimate goal in mind, of course.
As far as the help of mystical experiences is concerned in
acquiring both worldly and religious guidance, the Sunnah of the Prophet (sws)
provides us with no leeway to that end. Furthermore, we look at the lives of the
Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws). They were the best of believers and they
faltered like Adam (sws) faltered in the beginning, they observed like Abraham (sws)
observed the stars. But as they recited from the Qur’an, they submitted to the
Divine Truth; they surrendered the supreme reasoning faculty before the Divine
Word and professed faith in Allah and the Hereafter without actually having seen
them. Reason, they did exercise, but as regards the matters beyond the scope of
Divine Guidance – an exercise in which they also observed the norms of innate
guidance. In summary, reason, in conjunction with innate guidance, does have
authority over the senses but Divine Guidance reigns supreme as regards the
matters which it has specifically addressed.
|