Characteristics of the Current Islamic Thought
Islam today is acquired and studied through these methods, and it is obvious by their nature that they cannot establish any Islamic thinking.
As a result of their prevalence, idleness in thinking, and superficial and emotional thinking are encompassing the current thinking of Muslims in spite of the tremendous number of Muslims studying Islam in universities, masjids, and institutions, and the increasing number of Shaykhs.
These methods naturally lead to such a situation because Islam is no longer viewed as an ideology that shapes the point of view towards life. Rather, Islam is taken either as rigid or static information, or as stories to appease the emotions. Following are some characteristics of the current thinking of the Muslim Ummah that have emerged as a result of acquiring Islam through these methods.
Superficial Thinking
Thinking can be characterized as either superficial, profound, or enlightened. The superficial thinking results from a lack of deep and comprehensive study of the situation, and the individual who resorts to this thinking is content with looking at the surface of any event or situation. This superficial though reflects in the current political thinking of the Muslims.
When Muslims look to the existing states in the Muslim world, they think that these states are independent and that the rulers have their own will simply because they each have their own borders, flag, constitution, and membership in international organizations. However, if the same person who reaches this conclusion would spend time studying the reality of these states, how they were developed, and their relationship with the West, he would not conclude that these states are independent.
Another example of superficial thinking is claiming that Democracy parallels the Shura that Islam calls for based solely upon the fact that Islam recommends consultation and gives the Ummah the right to choose the Khalifah.
However, closely examining the ideological basis of Democracy in a profound way will reveal that Democracy is a specific system based on the notion that the human being has the right to make his own laws and decide for himself his own standards of right and wrong. This notion contradicts the basis of the Islamic system, which states that only Allah (swt) has the right to make laws and decide what is halal and haram while the human being has only the right to understand and implement these laws. Not only do the Democratic and Islamic systems differ in the source of their laws but in the process of extracting the laws from the legal sources.
Whereas in Democracy the process of extracting laws is governed by the prevailing interests of the society, in Islam the process of extracting laws in done through ijtihad , which is a specific process that is dictated by the Arabic language and the strength of the evidence from the legal text. Furthermore, the institution of Shura as defined by Islam is distinct from the functions of the Congresses and Parliaments of the West.
Still another example of superficial thinking among Muslims is seen in the evaluation of some individuals and movements by their external features without attempting to study what they call for, how they think, how they were established, and other factors, in a profound and critical way. No one can be a good person by the mere fact that he is a member of a specific group or because he has a long beard or holds a religious position. By the same token, no group or institution can be considered Islamic simply because it carries the name of Islam and its founders are Muslims.
Both cases require probing beyond the apparent features and scrutinizing any individual or group that claims the name of Islam.
Because this type of thinking requires very little effort, most people find its utilization easy. And with the passage of time, individuals will gradually be content with this type of thinking if left to their own devices. This type of thinking has to be fought because of its lack of productivity, both for the individual as well as for the Ummah.
Contrary to the superficial thinking, the profound thinking is produced by conducting a deep study of the issue at hand as well as by analyzing and scrutinizing both the situation and the information related to the situation deeply. In examining a table, the superficial thinker would focus only on the apparent features, and would thus conclude that a table with a brownish color and four supports exists. A deep thinker would scrutinize the table more profoundly, which would result in information about the table’s physical composition, the specific type of wood used, and other physical parameters such as its hardness and its dimensions.
Thus, the deep thinking is sufficient in fields such as chemistry or physics. However, due to its nature, the profound thinking does not require from the individual in the lab to think about other issues beyond the material at hand, such as where the material came from or its relationship to the surroundings.
The highest level of thinking is the enlightened or comprehensive thinking. This type of thinking is needed in areas or fields which require thinking deeply about a specific situation or issue in addition to thinking comprehensively by connecting the issue or situation at hand to other situations or issues. Areas such as political analysis and jurisprudence require this type of thinking. In the field of jurisprudence, the person must utilize the enlightened thinking in order to think about the situation, refer back to the legal texts addressing the situation, understand and analyze the texts according to a specific methodology, and then apply this understanding to the situation.
In the example of the table, an enlightened thinker would think deeply about the table with all of its physical features, in addition to thinking about where and how the table was constructed, where the material used to construct the table came from, and the relationship of the table to the rest of the furniture and the overall setup of the room.
To more vividly illustrate the distinction between the three types of thinking, some examples are needed.
Calling to establish a Palestinian state in the West bank and Gaza would constitute superficial thinking. As a result, a superficial person will perceive only the surface value of this slogan and will look to those who call for such a state as heroes and saviors. However, thinking deeply about this state in terms of its resources and internal situation would lead a profound thinker to conclude that such a state is impossible to emerge and sustain itself, and that the call to establish such a state is a mission impossible. And an enlightened thinker would not only scrutinize the Palestinian state itself but would connect this situation with the plans of the superpowers in the region and their relationship with the different parties in the Middle East.
Based on this comprehensive research, the enlightened thinker would conclude that the issue extends beyond the impossible and dreaming about impossible things. From this context, the issue of the Palestinian state will be viewed as part of a wider plan that calls for establishing a Palestinian entity, either as a buffer zone or as a connection between Israel and the other neighbors, where the one who calls for such a state is only a player in this game.
Another example to illustrate the distinction between the three types of thinking is seen in the Missionary invasion of the Uthmani Khilafah which began in the 17th century. A superficial thinker would look at such a situation as a group of people who came to the Islamic State, opened up various missionary organizations, associations, and schools, in order to preach Christianity and endorse education in various sciences. The deep thinker would scrutinize these Missionary movements and examine the reality of their organizations and their ideas.
Based on this profound study, such a person would conclude that these Missionary organizations were in fact calling for Nationalism, Western Culture, and other corrupt ideas that seeped into the thinking of the Muslims. And the enlightened thinker would scrutinize the nature and reality of these movements and what they were calling for, in addition to thinking about the origins of such a movements, their ultimate objective, and their relationship to the West and its objectives.
Such a comprehensive thinking process which would encompass all the issues related to the Missionaries would conclude that the Missionary movement was a continuation of the West’s objective of diverting the Muslims from their ideology with the overall objective of dismantling the Khilafah and colonizing the Muslim world.
The superficial thinking has to be fought, and the Muslims must be trained to think not only profoundly but comprehensively because such an enlightened thinking process is the only way for the Muslim Ummah to understand its situation and its course of action in this life. The development of profound and enlightened thinking can materialize by presenting case studies and continuing to work with the individuals until they will never be content with their thinking until they think in a profound and enlightened manner.
-----
if anyone knows who the author is...pls let me know
Islam today is acquired and studied through these methods, and it is obvious by their nature that they cannot establish any Islamic thinking.
As a result of their prevalence, idleness in thinking, and superficial and emotional thinking are encompassing the current thinking of Muslims in spite of the tremendous number of Muslims studying Islam in universities, masjids, and institutions, and the increasing number of Shaykhs.
These methods naturally lead to such a situation because Islam is no longer viewed as an ideology that shapes the point of view towards life. Rather, Islam is taken either as rigid or static information, or as stories to appease the emotions. Following are some characteristics of the current thinking of the Muslim Ummah that have emerged as a result of acquiring Islam through these methods.
Superficial Thinking
Thinking can be characterized as either superficial, profound, or enlightened. The superficial thinking results from a lack of deep and comprehensive study of the situation, and the individual who resorts to this thinking is content with looking at the surface of any event or situation. This superficial though reflects in the current political thinking of the Muslims.
When Muslims look to the existing states in the Muslim world, they think that these states are independent and that the rulers have their own will simply because they each have their own borders, flag, constitution, and membership in international organizations. However, if the same person who reaches this conclusion would spend time studying the reality of these states, how they were developed, and their relationship with the West, he would not conclude that these states are independent.
Another example of superficial thinking is claiming that Democracy parallels the Shura that Islam calls for based solely upon the fact that Islam recommends consultation and gives the Ummah the right to choose the Khalifah.
However, closely examining the ideological basis of Democracy in a profound way will reveal that Democracy is a specific system based on the notion that the human being has the right to make his own laws and decide for himself his own standards of right and wrong. This notion contradicts the basis of the Islamic system, which states that only Allah (swt) has the right to make laws and decide what is halal and haram while the human being has only the right to understand and implement these laws. Not only do the Democratic and Islamic systems differ in the source of their laws but in the process of extracting the laws from the legal sources.
Whereas in Democracy the process of extracting laws is governed by the prevailing interests of the society, in Islam the process of extracting laws in done through ijtihad , which is a specific process that is dictated by the Arabic language and the strength of the evidence from the legal text. Furthermore, the institution of Shura as defined by Islam is distinct from the functions of the Congresses and Parliaments of the West.
Still another example of superficial thinking among Muslims is seen in the evaluation of some individuals and movements by their external features without attempting to study what they call for, how they think, how they were established, and other factors, in a profound and critical way. No one can be a good person by the mere fact that he is a member of a specific group or because he has a long beard or holds a religious position. By the same token, no group or institution can be considered Islamic simply because it carries the name of Islam and its founders are Muslims.
Both cases require probing beyond the apparent features and scrutinizing any individual or group that claims the name of Islam.
Because this type of thinking requires very little effort, most people find its utilization easy. And with the passage of time, individuals will gradually be content with this type of thinking if left to their own devices. This type of thinking has to be fought because of its lack of productivity, both for the individual as well as for the Ummah.
Contrary to the superficial thinking, the profound thinking is produced by conducting a deep study of the issue at hand as well as by analyzing and scrutinizing both the situation and the information related to the situation deeply. In examining a table, the superficial thinker would focus only on the apparent features, and would thus conclude that a table with a brownish color and four supports exists. A deep thinker would scrutinize the table more profoundly, which would result in information about the table’s physical composition, the specific type of wood used, and other physical parameters such as its hardness and its dimensions.
Thus, the deep thinking is sufficient in fields such as chemistry or physics. However, due to its nature, the profound thinking does not require from the individual in the lab to think about other issues beyond the material at hand, such as where the material came from or its relationship to the surroundings.
The highest level of thinking is the enlightened or comprehensive thinking. This type of thinking is needed in areas or fields which require thinking deeply about a specific situation or issue in addition to thinking comprehensively by connecting the issue or situation at hand to other situations or issues. Areas such as political analysis and jurisprudence require this type of thinking. In the field of jurisprudence, the person must utilize the enlightened thinking in order to think about the situation, refer back to the legal texts addressing the situation, understand and analyze the texts according to a specific methodology, and then apply this understanding to the situation.
In the example of the table, an enlightened thinker would think deeply about the table with all of its physical features, in addition to thinking about where and how the table was constructed, where the material used to construct the table came from, and the relationship of the table to the rest of the furniture and the overall setup of the room.
To more vividly illustrate the distinction between the three types of thinking, some examples are needed.
Calling to establish a Palestinian state in the West bank and Gaza would constitute superficial thinking. As a result, a superficial person will perceive only the surface value of this slogan and will look to those who call for such a state as heroes and saviors. However, thinking deeply about this state in terms of its resources and internal situation would lead a profound thinker to conclude that such a state is impossible to emerge and sustain itself, and that the call to establish such a state is a mission impossible. And an enlightened thinker would not only scrutinize the Palestinian state itself but would connect this situation with the plans of the superpowers in the region and their relationship with the different parties in the Middle East.
Based on this comprehensive research, the enlightened thinker would conclude that the issue extends beyond the impossible and dreaming about impossible things. From this context, the issue of the Palestinian state will be viewed as part of a wider plan that calls for establishing a Palestinian entity, either as a buffer zone or as a connection between Israel and the other neighbors, where the one who calls for such a state is only a player in this game.
Another example to illustrate the distinction between the three types of thinking is seen in the Missionary invasion of the Uthmani Khilafah which began in the 17th century. A superficial thinker would look at such a situation as a group of people who came to the Islamic State, opened up various missionary organizations, associations, and schools, in order to preach Christianity and endorse education in various sciences. The deep thinker would scrutinize these Missionary movements and examine the reality of their organizations and their ideas.
Based on this profound study, such a person would conclude that these Missionary organizations were in fact calling for Nationalism, Western Culture, and other corrupt ideas that seeped into the thinking of the Muslims. And the enlightened thinker would scrutinize the nature and reality of these movements and what they were calling for, in addition to thinking about the origins of such a movements, their ultimate objective, and their relationship to the West and its objectives.
Such a comprehensive thinking process which would encompass all the issues related to the Missionaries would conclude that the Missionary movement was a continuation of the West’s objective of diverting the Muslims from their ideology with the overall objective of dismantling the Khilafah and colonizing the Muslim world.
The superficial thinking has to be fought, and the Muslims must be trained to think not only profoundly but comprehensively because such an enlightened thinking process is the only way for the Muslim Ummah to understand its situation and its course of action in this life. The development of profound and enlightened thinking can materialize by presenting case studies and continuing to work with the individuals until they will never be content with their thinking until they think in a profound and enlightened manner.
-----
if anyone knows who the author is...pls let me know
No comments:
Post a Comment