Limits of Reason - Domain of Islam

(1369 Reads)(2353 total words in this text)

Limits of Reason
Mufti Muhammad 'Taqi Ulthmaani

The result of freedom from Divine Revelation
People today are indulging in immoral practices openly and unashamedly, under the pretext of rationalism. Why is all this happening? It is because we are trying to use the intellect in matters which lie beyond its jurisdiction and in which the Divine Revelation alone can provide guidance. One result of releasing the intellect from the grip of the Divine Revelation may be seen in the fact that the British Parliament, some time ago, had passed the law of legalising homosexuality under the thump of clapping. And now this vice is becoming increasingly popular.

Once I happened to visit a library in New York. I found that a separate section was devoted to literature on the subject. "Gay style of life ". A large number of books have been published on this subject and many associations are working for this under the auspices of persons holding high positions. The then Mayor of New York was also a Gay.

In one of the past issues of the famous American Magazine. "The Times ", there was a report that about one thousand of the American soldiers engaged in the Gulf war were discharged on the charge of being homosexuals. A great hue and cry was raised against this action demanding their reinstatement. The argument of the protesters was that there was nothing wrong with being a Gay, as it was only the satisfaction of a human urge. On the basis of this human urge most heinous vices are being declared lawful because according to them, there can absolutely be no objection to such acts.

Another Deception of the Intellect
Today ways and means are being searched for in order to check the spread of the nuclear weapons, the devastating effects of which are well known all over the world, In an. article included in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, on the topic of the Atom Bomb, it is stated that the experiment of the Atom Bomb was made in two places in the world, viz. Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Defending the devastation wrought by the Bomb, the article has mentioned first of all that the explosions of the Atom Bomb in these two places were made to save about ten million human lives. It has been argued that if this explosion had not taken place, there was a possibility of the continuance of these nuclear wars resulting in the death of about ten million human beings. Thus the Atom Bomb has been introduced to the world as a saviour and not as a destroyer of life. This justification of a universally accursed crime has also been offered on the basis of the so-called intellect.

What is intended to impress by this example is that it is always possible to find some justification and excuse through the misuse of the intellect even for the worst vices and misdeeds.

Let us take another example. The entire world is cursing the cult of Fascism today, and the names of its two champions. Hitler and Mussolini, have become words of abuse in the political world. One only needs to go through their philosophy of Fascism to see how logically and cleverly they have presented it to the world in the garb of something quite feasible and reasonable. Why is it so? It is indeed the misplacement and misuse of the intellect that misguided them.. Thus, there is no vice and crime in the world for which some justification cannot be found because of the misuse and misplacement of this faculty.

The well-known historian and philosopher Allaamah Ibne Khaldoon has written that the intellect which Almighty Allah has bestowed upon man is indeed very useful and valuable, but this is subject to the condition that it is utilised within its jurisdiction. It may be compared to the delicate scale, which is used to weigh gold. If anyone uses it to weigh a large block of stone, it will obviously break. Now if any person says that the scale is useless as it could not weigh the block of stone, that person will be declared a fool. The truth is that the scale was used for something which did not fall within its jurisdiction, so it broke. (Introduction of Ibne Khaldoon Pg. 440)

The difference between Islam and Secularism

The basic difference between Islam and secularism is that Islam recommends the use of the intellect strictly within its jurisdiction and not beyond that. If it is pressed into service beyond that not only will it not work, but it will also begin to produce wrong answers. If you demand of a computer a piece of information which has not been fed into it, not only will it fail to provide you with the correct answers, it will, on the contrary, give wrong and misleading results. In the same way this computer of the human intellect will also give misleading replies about something which has not been fed into it. It will be absurd to utilise the intellect and expect from it information which can be obtained only from the Divine Revelation. That is why Almighty Allah from time to time, sent His Messengers with Divine Scriptures, the last of them being the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) who came to this world with the last of the Revealed Books, the glorious Qur’aan. There is a verse in the Qur' an. saying:

"We have indeed revealed to you the Book with the Truth, so that you may judge between mankind." (4:105)

This Revealed Book, the Qur'aan Majeed, will tell you what is true and what is false, what is right and what is wrong what is good and what is bad, things which you cannot know through your intellect.

The hopeless condition of the Organisation that advocates Freedom of Thought

There is a renowned International Organization known as 'Amnesty International' , with its Head Office in Paris. Sometime ago a research scholar of this Organisation visited Pakistan for carrying out a survey. He also called on me for an interview. He began his interview by saying that it was the aim of his Organisation to work for the freedom of thought and to secure the freedom of many people who are suffering from torture in prisons on the charge of their
freedom of thought and the Organisation wanted to liberate them. This, he said, is an issue about which there is no dispute. He told me that he had been sent to Pakistan to collect the opinions of different classes of people in this country. He wanted to question me too on this subject.

The following dialogue took place between us:

I: When did you arrive in Karachi?
He: Just this morning.
I: When do you intend to go back?

He: I am leaving for Islamabad tomorrow morning. (This meeting was held at
night).

I: How long will you stay in Islamabad?

He: Only one day.

I: You are going to carry out a survey of the opinion of various circles of
people in Pakistan after which you shall draw up a report to submit to
your Organisation. Will your stay in two or three cities of Pakistan for
two or three days be sufficient for your purpose?

He: It is obvious that three days are not sufficient to know the opinions of all
sections of the people. I have, however met peoples of different schools
of thought. I have come to see you for the same purpose. Kindly favour
me with your guidance.

I: How many persons have you met in Karachi?

He: I have met three persons and you are the fourth.

I: You will draw up a report purporting to represent Karachi on the basis of
the ideas of these four men only. I doubt about the seriousness of your
survey report. Serious research work is not undertaken in this way. I am.
therefore unable to reply to your questions.

He attributed his inability to interview more people for shortage of time.
Still he insisted on my replies to some of his questions. I told him that I
was unable to cooperate with him for such an incomplete survey. On the
other hand, I asked him permission to put to him a few questions about
the basic concept of his organisation.

He: In fact. I had visited you to put to you few questions but if you do not
want to entertain my questions you are welcome to put some questions
about my organisation, if you so desire.

Is the Theory of Freedom of thought absolute?

I said to him: "You say that the Organisation that has deputed you on this work is a champion of freedom of thought. This freedom of thought is indeed very good, but do you believe that it is totally absolute in its import? Are there no restrictions to keep it within some limits?" He replied that he failed to understand my intention. I explained by saying: "Is the conception of freedom of thought so absolute that man should express himself before others and preach to others and exhort them to follow whatever occurs to him? For example, 1 feel inclined to think that the capitalists have amassed great wealth so the poor classes should have the freedom to carry out robber}- in order to seize the amassed wealth of the capitalists and there should be none to stop them from this? 1 should also propagate this thought of mine among the common people, because the capitalists have amassed this wealth by sucking the blood of the poorer classes. Now tell me if you would support this type of freedom of thought?"

In reply, he told me that he would not support such unbridled freedom of thought. I told him that when the conception of freedom of thought is not absolute, then should you not agree that some restrictions should be placed on it? He replied in the affirmative, adding by way of an example, that the freedom of thought should not allow the commission of violence and tyranny to others. I said, "This is your view. Others should also have freedom to express personal views about the imposition of restrictions on the freedom of thought. There is no reason why only your views about the restrictions on the freedom of thought should be accepted and those of others rejected. The whole issue boils to this question: What should be these restrictions and who should finally approve or disapprove them? I request you to let me know of some universally acceptable standard or yardstick for the adoption of the desirable restrictions.''

His answer to this question was, "We have never given serious thought to this issue." I said, “It is a pity that you belong to such a renowned International Organisation and have come to carry out a survey on the topic of freedom of thought, but you have not yet decided as to what should be the limits, scope and jurisdiction of this so-called freedom. This programme of yours cannot be successful without a clear-cut decision on this vital issue." I requested him to furnish me an answer to this question from the literature available to him or after consulting others.

The gentleman promised to convey to his organisation my views and send me the relevant literature on the subject. He then took leave and thanked me coolly. I have been waiting for his literature or replies to my question to this day. I feel quite sure that he can furnish to me neither replies to my questions nor any universally acceptable literature on this topic, and neither can anybody else until the Day of Judgement. This is because every person will fix a standard of his own choice. There is no one in this world who can propose a standard which is universally applicable. I can assert this without fear of any repudiation that there is no standard or criterion other than the criterion of the Divine Revelation, which alone can impose necessary and eternal limits on the ambiguous thoughts and conceptions. Man has no guidance other than the Divine Guidance.

YOUNG MENS MUSLIM ASSOCIATION
P.O. BOX 18594, Actonvile 1506 (Benoni, South Africa)

[ Back to Aqidah (Beliefs) | Sections index ]


	HOME DOWNLOADS FORUM ABOUT USWelcome Guest : Register \| Log in