Unacceptable & Acceptable Islamic Scholarship: Towards a Prescriptive Kuhnian Model

Unacceptable & Acceptable Islamic Scholarship:

Towards a Prescriptive Kuhnian Model.

Preamble.

Recently I attended "Living Islam Camp 2011". Showcased were the arguments from a selection of Islamic Scholars, including the renowned Imam Zaid Shakir, of the Zeytuna Institute, USA. It was interesting to note his construction of acceptable arguments and then to juxtapositions that with the construction of unacceptable arguments. A keynote seminar asked, or rather implied, that we Muslims are "... intellectually stagnant."

The Age of Science & Technology.

If we suppose that Islamic Scholarship is stagnant, then do we also suppose that the way out of that box is the creation of new knowledge?

We live in an age of Scientific and Technological innovation, which quite correctly premises that the measure of any knowledge is how useful it is.

Within that field Science Theorists, post Kuhn, have recognised that Science as an activity is in the "business" of falsifying given or accepted knowledge. Within those boundaries scientific endeavour is both progressive and generative. Indeed the measure of the success of a scientific discipline is given by how many journals are devoted to its endeavours, and concurrently how much money is spent doing it. And a scientific postulate only becomes a theory when it provides both testability and falsibility (note: not its fallibility, but its ability to be falsified), that both guarantee an avenue for further work and therefore further spending. If a postulate remains "ill-defined" within those terms then the community of scientists will never progress the idea to the level of theory.

That the Qur'an mentions both that type of activity as a means of providing proof of its authenticity, "if you are able then produce a like thereof" (s2 v23-24), and the scientific implication of a movement towards future and greater scientific truths,* "WE will show them our proofs", is interesting. An furthermore it is interesting to note that the first refers to what Science Theorists now term eliminative proof (or proof by contradiction) which they are generally agreed is the greatest of the types of proof.

For what we call Islamic knowledge is quite unlike scientific knowledge.

Most definitely all knowledge is Holy.

But whilst the Qur'an summons us to examine and scrutinise our World, it likewise summons us to use that pursuit to strengthen and verify our belief in immutable and subtle truths. And whilst scientific knowledge is both necessarily testable and falsifiable, those truths are not.

Unchangeable Truths.

The Qur'an at core declares that Muhammad (saw) was both the personification of the perfect man, "in him you will find the best of examples to follow", and one who knew best the Qur'an.

The truths that Muhammad (saw) saw in the Qur'an are immutable. Throughout history Muslims are agreed on the fact that Muhammad (saw) perception of the Qur'an transcended both his environment (the Arab nation) and his time (7th Century CE).

If we believe that those truths espoused by the Qur'an are unchangeable then how can we compare any endeavour related to it with the scientific endeavour.

Contrary to the position occupied by the panel discussing Islamic intellectual "development or the lack of it", at the camp, I do not believe that a measure of the successfulness of Islamic Scholarship should include how many institutes, journals and money is spent doing it.

Indeed when we examine the past of Islamic Scholarship we find the contrary held. The Muslim Scholars that we remember well were often poor, and though famous, were never funded, even to the extent of refusing patronage from the ruling classes.

Islamic Scholarship.

Should, then, Islamic Scholarship be modernised so that it plays to the tune of contemporary Scientific Scholarship?

And then if Islamic Scholarship cannot concern itself with the creation of new knowledge, what can it perform of usefulness to the wider population?

Within this context it becomes obvious that Islamic Scholarship should be about the re-invention, or re-discoverisation, of things you already know. The strengthening of connections already made. And the focusing of sight on those things in a new light and from another contemporary view.

Even if we believe, as in this instance, that there is no new knowledge does that necessitate passivity?

No it does not because whilst we might agree that Muhammad (saw) best understood the Qur'an and hence that the truths expressed in the Qur'an are immutable and unchangeable, we might also realise that he (saw) purposely left a lot of that understanding unexpressed.

Taweel & Tafsir.

For whilst Muhammad (saw) was encouraged and therefore commanded to tell all;

 وَمَا هُوَ عَلَى الْغَيْبِ بِضَنِينٍ

"And he (Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) withholds not a knowledge of the unseen." (81:24);

it is worthy to note that the command relates to the unseen that he witnessed, and so the prior verse informs the latter in that it relates to Angel Jibrael (as) in his visible and true nature. And not therefore everything that the Prophet (saw) knew in regard to the revelation of the Qur'an and its taweel (explanation). We know of several verses that were explained by the companions of Rasulallah (saw), and where strikingly that explanation was not confirmed by Rasulallah. And one instance where a companion (as) wrongly interpreted a specific verse and which was later corrected by the Prophet (saw).

It is as if the Prophet (saw) had intended and indeed encouraged for the door to taweel (the interpretation of the Qur’an) to remain open.

And then we might notice that the Qur'an as a source and guide book is replete with questions not just explicit, but more importantly those implicit ones, just waiting to be asked.

My understanding of this issue has been covered in these previous blogs.

A Worldly Knowledge.

And so the doors of taweel in regard to the Qur'an remained an open source of endeavour, which is in itself generative. Because it is in the nature of relevant questions in regard to the Qur'an to generate yet more questions in regard to our World, not just a present contemporary World, but furthermore a distant past and a looming future.

And so for a Muslim a study of the Qur'an is just as generative, in terms of both questions and endeavours, as the business of doing science whilst at the same time not in the job of falsifying truths but embellishing and verifying them. And thus if the measure of a knowledge be its usefulness then the Qur'an is shown to be at the very least on a par with Science, and at the very best in regards to the believers far excelling Science. And then in that regard it transpires that the Scientific endeavour is but one branch of the greatest and first of Islamic Sciences; Tafsir ul Qur'an, investigations into the meaning of the Qur'an.

Generative & Progressive.

And so we come full circle, having I hope shown that whilst Islamic Scholarship might not invent anything new, and is concerned with the embellishment of given truths, it nevertheless is generative. Furthermore it is progressive even whilst we agree that the understanding that Muhammad (saw) held of the Qur'an transcended both his time and his social context, precisely because it is a timeless revelation sent for all generations and nations of people that would follow.

When we admit that then the Qur'an becomes relevant in any and all contexts that we might throw at it. It speaks to all of us in whatever language we might wish to consult it in.

The Process of Knowledge Creation.

But then therein lies the rub, that both acceptable and non-acceptable "new" knowledge creation works by removing a text from its original context and placing it in another. What distinguishes acceptable and unacceptable knowledge creation is not how it is done, but rather the context through which we view it.

To give you an example of acceptable knowledge creation Imam Zaid Shakir at the conference played with the context of a given text from the Hadith of Rasullah (saw).

Muhammad (saw) said that a believer leaves alone the business of that which does not concern him. As a standalone recommendation for godly behaviour it is clearly concerned with social interaction, put simply mind your own business and do not concern yourself with the business of others.

Imam Zaid Shakir removed it from its social context and said that the business of a believer is imaan (faith). And then he extended the argument to say that thus Muslims should only concern themselves with things that help increase their faith.

It was a novel use of the first phrase that led to a collective eureka moment. What made the argument acceptable was that he was talking to Muslims who were concerned with increasing their faith.

Off course I can easily contrast this example with the many examples of poor contextualisations from the Sufi order or other field of the religion. But my point is to show that acceptable knowledge creation works by the same process.

And indeed if we were to take Imam Zaid Shakir’s innovation to its logical end, it would mean that vast areas of pure mathematics that have benefited humanity manifold would never have been. Precisely because the developers never thought or believed that their work would have such an incredible impact on our lives. Is it then that we should premise that knowledge for which we have no current need is not holy? Then what of the similitude of the gnat mentioned in the Qur'an? (s2:26)

So then if acceptable and unacceptable knowledge cannot be differentiated in its method of generation, nor in its contextual implication (since it would typically verify what you chose already to be given and true), how then can we proceed towards a semblance of Truth.

Checks, Balances & further generatives.

Maybe our checks and balances should include not just attempts at being free from contradiction by examining arguments through taking them through to their logical conclusion (as I did with Imam Zaid Shakirs argument), but also actively seeking out seeming contradictions in the vast corpus of tradition which is our religion. And by that I mean not in the religion per se, but in our contemporary understanding of it and its ongoing development.

And then it is that that study of those seeming contradictions can become a further engine for generative thought.

And so I hope to have shown you full circle that the generation of Islamic knowledge does have a semblance of scientific endeavour to it, most especially when we consider it in Kuhnian terms. That it can be both generative and useful and that it appeals to its consumers who are none but ourselves.

Towards a Kuhnian theory of Islamic Scholarship.

And I have prescribed a methodology for the generation of new Islamic knowledge as being centred on Tafsir ul Qur'an and it's Hikmah (being that which was sent down upon Muhammad (saw) other than the Qur'an), in the style of Tabaree whereby contextual questions within the framework and body of Islamic Knowledge are not frowned upon, but in fact lead the way towards the embellishment of still greater truths. 

Where seeming contradictions lead to further investigative work. 

Where this work is not done in institutes far removed from the experience of everyday Muslims. After all Islam is a religion that is lived and not held in books, save obviously the one book which states of it itself that is a guide book for all those who believe.

Shafi, written in haste :-)