The oldest African and Asian traditions taught the art of living in phase and harmony with the souls of the elements and with Nature. The Vedas and then the teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism all emphasized that there are correspondences between the macrocosm and the self-transcendence that could be achieved by becoming as one with the soul of the cosmos. The projection of the Greek Logos, which reflects the rationality that strives to apprehend it, is clearly a quest for harmony. The meaning of the Law, exile and the principles of faith that lie at the heart of Jewish orthopraxis call upon believers to remain true to their ‘chosen’ status in the light of the One, just as the teachings of the Christian faith and salvation through Jesus bring the gospel of the possibility of redemption through grace and love, which are faith and fusion. The Muslim tradition of proximity, memory and trust, with the heart and understanding of‘those who are endowed with insight’, appeals for the same quest for harmony between the senses, the intellect and the heart. The involvement of Muslim scholars in the experimental sciences thanks to the rise of medicine, physics, chemistry and even astronomy from the Middle Ages onwards was a response to this fundamental intuition: the how of the world reveals or confirms to us all or part of its why: ‘Only those among his servants who have knowledge are truly conscious of God’ (Quran 35:28). The link could not but be established.
Some philosophers have attempted to establish links between the realm of belief and that of reason by other means, or by grounding the rationale for belief or faith in rationality. Socrates tried to prove that the soul is immortal, and thinkers like al-Kindi (ninth century), al-Farabî (c.872–950) and Ibn Rushd (Averroës: 1126– 1198), who were all influenced by Greek thought, also tried to use logic to prove the necessity of the divine and/or Revelation. The proof of God’s existence advanced by Descartes reveals the same desire: establishing faith on a rational basis and establishing links is a way of establishing the truth and achieving harmony. When he refutes Descartes’ ontological proof of the existence of God, Kant reformulates for both himself and posterity the terms of the debate. As he moves from a description of pure reason to that of the judgements of practical reason, he has to abandon knowledge and replace it with belief. The science of the heart is not the science of reason, and we have to decide how to reconcile the two.
Spiritualities, religions and many contemporary philosophers (atheists, agnostics and believers) agree that we need to think about the ends of human action. Religion should therefore not meddle with scientific hypotheses, methods, theories or knowledge: the big bang or the theory of evolution (which, according to some contemporary biologists, must not be reduced to Darwinian interpretations) cannot be refuted by means of the ‘proofs’ of the creationism that is promoted by the most literal readings of the religious texts. That is simply not tenable. It would, however, be madness to give complete autonomy to an analytic and technical reason that sees no need to ask questions about the ends of human knowledge and actions. As many humanists down to Heidegger, Sartre and Camus have all said, faith must recognize the autonomy of reason and its ability to produce a rational, secular ethics. By the same criterion, reason must accept that it is legitimate for the heart, consciousness and faith to believe in an order and ends that exist prior to its observations, discoveries and hypotheses. Once the distinction between the realms of faith and reason, and religion and science, has been accepted, it is therefore futile to debate, and still less to dispute, the hierarchy of first truths (dogmas and postulates) or the nature of the authority granted to their methods and/or references (rational logic or Revelation).
The religious or spiritual mind cannot recognize the primacy of the principle of reason that is invoked by the atheist, just as the atheist cannot accept the existence of the realm of faith, spirituality or the heart that is invoked by the Brahman, the believer or the initiate. Whilst it is impossible to agree about origins, sources, hierarchies and methods, it is possible to agree about necessary finalities. That faith or spirituality refers to an a priori ethics (which governs human rationality and acts) whilst an autonomous analytic reason produces an a posteriori rational ethics is not in itself a problem: it should allow us to reconcile the two perspectives and to participate in the production of the shared universal discussed in the last chapter. Faith should not meddle with scientific postulates, hypotheses and conclusions, just as reason must not discredit the essence and substance of faith in the name of a supposedly superior positivism. It is vital to preserve the human choice – and right – to believe, just as we must guarantee the human right to debate, question and describe the world as it is. Harmony must therefore emerge a posteriori: we have to think together (on the basis of our multiple references) about both the ends of how we act upon the world and the values and principles that constitute the applied ethics we have to elaborate in a pluralistic, collective way. The world now obliges us to think about ends. Michel Serres demonstrates in his Contrat naturel that the state of the planet means that we have to reconsider the nature of the autonomy of science. If we do not include the third party – Nature – in our human, social, political and economic contracts, we will destroy ourselves. We have no choice. We are back to the basic intuition of the earliest spiritualities: harmony between the self and the self, and between the self and the world, is the ultimate goal, and the senses, the heart and reason must play their respective parts in the general symphony. Pointless disputes about sources and origins make us lose sight of the need to reconcile ethics and ends. Reason must remain free and critical, but it also has a duty to question its own power and its potential selfimportance. Science needs ethics in the same way that reason needs the heart. An atheist is, it is said, a believer who does not realize that he believes, for it is true that no one has ever been completely devoid of faith or of some belief. Knowing ourselves means having the humility to measure the substance of what we know and the tenor of what we believe . . . without ever allowing our beliefs to stifle our ability to remain curious, to ask probing questions and to never tire of criticism . . . and without ever allowing our analytic reason to trap us into the arrogance of those who despise, in themselves or others, the grammar of signs, the prayers of love and the knowledge of the heart.
There is no sound reasoning possible with authorities that pound on it: they deny access to truth of “the other”. If a believer is crushed, having both faith and reason, the outcome is that self-defence is necessary. A strategy is to be an automatic actor and put on the face of the one who destroys you in front of him/her to show how how evil he/she is, if given the chance. When one is forced into the “mental health care system”, which cannot be trusted (Theories surrounding this so-called science are dubious because one’s life becomes lifeless and one is made to actually feel sick, long term) the initial reaction for the one such as myself is to not to even want to notice these “doctors” and “nurses”. But when forced to accept their “treatment”, imposed in a subtle way, the other reaction of verbally reasoning with them means that according to them, the mind has to be calmed down through forced medication. And when self-defence is used in the form of putting up a face of anger to reflect the threat & violence they pose means that they inject me with heavy sleep medication. A believer, such as myself, who is forced to put up with the “mental health care system” finds that many of the “people who care” there are a burden, and many are serving as instruments. The outcome is that, once medicated, acting is not possible because one is subdued, and giving a genuine happy smile is next to impossible depending on “the other”…in a sick world there is a show of mouth with (weakened) teeth.
The greatest challenge and mission of every authority is to set up monastic schools for every adult who is sensitive, lonely by the surroundings, friendless and “wakes up”. In this case he/she is trapped in an unbalanced, unreasonable and “far-away-from-nature” setting in a socio-economic world with authorities that imprisons him/her. Therefore monastic schools should be made compulsory for every human being to attend, at some point in life, and it should be able to replace “mental health care systems”. The solution is that these schools or monasteries should assist the individual to connect with oneself, connecting the heart and the mind, finding harmony with the world as it is, and importantly connecting with The One. In Islam He is Allah (S.B.T.)…He is the only Friend, therefore all the more reason to be very reasonable in this world.
“It is vital to preserve the human choice – and right – to believe, just as we must guarantee the human right to debate, question and describe the world as it is” Debate is often a misapplied word. Debate essentially means two parties keenly discussing a “For” and “Against” stance with a strong belief in the stance. However, a healthy discussion to arrive at a conclusion, based on an honest, ethical, peaceful and realistic conversation, with facts, examples, hypothesis, observations etc etc – is just a discussion to be convinced of an aspect. There is persuasion, diagnosis, dialogue, explanations, etc etc, all healthy ingredients of a discussion, conversation to arrive at a thought-through educated realistic conclusion. And this is what we engage in. Indeed it is vital to preserve this, for depriving our world of these methods and avenues, would be the return of dictatorship, robotic artificial intelligence, followers of deaf, dumb, mute and blind nature. Just as some societies already are. Prophet Muhammad AS asked for Rabbi Zidni Ilma, he asked for increase in knowledge, so how does one achieve an increase in knowledge? by reading (Ikhra!!!), asking questions to understand, synthesizing what is read and understood, internalizing it, identifying congruence with our practical real lives, reading the sources as a practical guide to apply to live life [ Meccan suras offer the spiritual, soulful and heartful methodologies while the Medina surahs offer engaging with community and establishing a community…booyah!!! I know my surahs now lol )) ] so if we stifle this navigational curiosity, how do we want to achieve an educated, well informed, humane ummah…servants of God, to make a difference in our warring worlds where ISIS is tainting our beautiful religion with all the wrong colors and twisting it to meet their horrific brutal goals. And questions from within the Ummah, and outside the Ummah must be entertained at all times, with gusto and transparency, so as to ensure the actual word of Allah propagates. So let us hope we will have spirited discussions till end of lives ))
“Pointless disputes about sources and origins make us lose sight of the need to reconcile ethics and ends.” some people thrive on creating drama at various levels – international, federal, state or community level. It is this need of mongering, bottom dwelling crowd (in mentality and sentiments) that leads to the cacophony of a bunch of crying hyaenas, which must be silenced and reminded, empty vessels make more noise and an empty mind is a devils workshop. It’s rather pathetic to note how mediocrity (disappointing to see the downfall of elements of our world to such low levels from professional, educational heights) can wallow in victimness or self-pity, begging from the general masses fake condolences for suicidal acts perpetrated as a result of ethical and conscious depravity, hosted on flimsy foundations of so many parameters. Any empathy and humane regard based on the dispositions of enthusiastic youth, have given way to a despise, from the beginning to the end, in light of such talking points. There is also an acute lack of good taste and self-respect when the recipients of this find themselves (allegorically…) barging into somebody else’s sanctity, without familiarity or invitation for a nuanced dialogue which they absolutely have no rights, capacity, authority or business to. It is this free and neoimperialism world that has lead to the invasion of so many nations and people. Indeed this colonizing crude gene is quite prevalent in the general masses. Consider another example: a peaceful friendship ends with the only outcome plausible of a fully-aware suicidal march. The important point to note is, it was just a friendship )) nothing more ever, peacefully ending with absolutely no impacts, on the contrary His Noor shining bright, lighting the way, saving the day towards Light and Life…, instead of the numerous deaths seen and a rendezvous with the unseen devil, sensed and frightfully startled with. The world can go to town being hyaenas.
The reality is the past has been ceremoniously dumped. End of chapter, with invisible ink. this quick-sand ends here. (Have these entities not settled in today’s world with procreation of their ideologies, much to the Meh of the rest of us?)
“Reason must remain free and critical, but it also has a duty to question its own power and its potential selfimportance…and without ever allowing our analytic reason to trap us into the arrogance of those who despise, in themselves or others, the grammar of signs, the prayers of love and the knowledge of the heart.” so let us figure this, who is trying to capture? bunch of people who just sashayed into the world recently, while one has been trying to hold the flag high of what Allah decrees us with? what is the vested interest? what do they know of what the first responsibilities are? It is rather amusing to see such confidence to pursue results which are not in their jurisdiction. With every ethical, moral, spiritual, religious, rationale, realistic and emotional fiber in the being, testifies that it is not the time, the method, the place and the people to arrive at a decision, especially with the absconding, narcissistic, self-righteous, deaf, blind, mute, chauvinistic mentality. There are many examples to corroborate such exclusive decorations, which pay homage to heritage of a region that specializes in such an outlook, including ofcourse my own. Nothing on this earth and in Quran warrants this methodology, if it does, then please highlight. or is it corporate policy shoved down their throat? in such a case it’s quite a heartless proposition with cruelty at its center for such a long long period of time, unprecedented in corporate and emotional history, with much due respect to all entities. (Bollywood finds its new musical melodramatic, thrilling, suspenseful script!) It’s a self-centered methodology of high-handedness, said as much many times through their crude mindset back in the day. Divine Intervention and Business are the only two aspects that keep both of us engaged for this particular matter with the third party, to see what the results could be. Else our collective and fatefully same interests would have meandered into much more rewarding aspects of life.
Allah SA has made a free world, there is no compulsion in religion, but His Messengers say “We Hear, We Obey” And this is yet another test and task,
(1) as to how does a mortal request present itself to the Almighty, before His Will manifests itself. We are well aware of the examples in Prophet Muhammad AS life and the very commands of Allah SA to ask of Him.
(2) This is also a distressing duty and gigantic responsibility to execute our stance, in the current quagmire, with ethics, integrity and rationality, for this will be an Example to stand in time as the fair and right way of dignified conduct before the Almighty, when faced with third party failure of execution for all.
(3) Its between God and Servant
Then why is there such puffed up drive to supposedly try and trap? Is there a lack of topics to talk about? Which is hard to imagine given such exemplar resumes on all counts. Imagine — “oh yea sure, yay! lets go shopping, like i want bubblegum pink and baby blue combinations for the napkins with golden garish ribbons, crass big balloons, eh and oh don’t know what who why or when, but duh yea lets jingle bell, jingle bells, jingle all the way with a bunch a of recent and old additions who want to dominate their will, like…lets party dude! book the venue, declare unceremoniously so and so, forget self-respect, grace, dignity and Allah’s decorum! yay!!!” lol )) — seriously? Is this the low standard of expectation from someone chosen to really change the tide of the world from it’s current distasteful ways?
And this is my advise to my daughter, sister, friend, mentee etc to execute with unrelated, detached, graceful Dignity, with commitments to Allah SA and His ways. His revelation is true, respected, conveyed and with a commitment between mortal and Divine, with established protocol to communicate with Him till His Will manifests.
I once asked my mother about the achieved, under achieved and supposedly failed. My mother admonished me and said every individual on this planet has it’s space for life, livelihood, accomplishments and self importance related to their space. Be it a laborer, a construction worker, butler etc. And we all must honor this self-importance, this self-worth, this dignified existence of each being, no matter the amount of space they have in this world. This is called Humility. Else it would be the conduct of Firaun and the rest of the baddies that the Messengers battled with ))
Muhammad AS himself negotiated with Allah SA to reduce the number of prayers from 5000 to 5, with guidance and encouragement from Musa AS. So is this case. Then based on what is there an entrapment efforts? It does not befit the knowledgeable to enforce such finalities till Allah’s final Will manifests itself.
with due respect to everyone and appreciation of the support for the new coming, lets just get through with this part of the journey collectively without jumping the gun! ))
And to elaborate further to expound on the miraculous gains for “victims” – some personal thoughts…according Newton’s Third Law, for every action, there is a reaction. As supported by Quran, word of Allah in Surah Al-Hajj. So fasten those seat belts for everyone, those who present an action will be complimented with a appropriate reaction, penalties to be awarded too. this is the law of the land and by God.
Newton’s Second Law states that the net force on an object is equal to the rate of change. What does this mean in layman terms? Philosophically it means the change we experience within ourselves and outside ourselves, is related to the force applied. Has the suicidal march not taught them anything? Personally, the depth of wisdom, knowledge of self, others and world, gained, is a blessing and a treasure. For I would not have matured, grown and evolved into the human being I am, to become an asset to my family, community, nation and corporate ecosystems. My life since school has presented many many challenges, which i flawlessly, immaculately, successfully conquered, where success has manifested at every juncture for anyone to notice, including the mainstream definition too – higher posts, better compensation packages, variety industry experiences. My father says – Time is a Great Healer – indeed it is. Time is a balm and teacher unlike any. I had the smarts to turn every challenge into an opportunity to benefit myself. Now if some want to wallow without any lessons learned, the signature call-sign of our brothers, then there is no scope in leadership for such individuals. May they stagnate in peace. I am thankful to everyone I encountered in the challenges, for they provided the stepping stones i needed to get where I am today.
It’s a free world with many options and opportunity that will be happily engaged with.
layman expression for the general masses!
One assumes that everyone, whether they believe in an afterlife or not, wants to survive and enjoy reasonable comfort and prosperity in this world. But the current dominant culture, where each individual or nation aims to gain maximum profit for him/her/itself whatever the cost to others, together with the practice of trying to conquer nature rather than working with it, is clearly not sustainable and the damaging effects are being felt even by those who earlier benefited so handsomely (wealthy and powerful individuals and nations).
The dominance in the contemporary world of those who vehemently dismiss religious faith and the principles it puts forward needs to be balanced by a renewed awareness of shared futures. History has shown over and over again that aggressive dominance by any one group to the exclusion of others will always end in the decline and even suffering of all. Human survival and prosperity cannot be achieved sustainably without some sort of ethics to underpin human enterprise. There needs to be humility, mutual respect, a recognition that everyone can gain by sharing ideas and perspectives, and by taking joint responsibility for ordering our world.
Is it not the case that when we are born we are devoid of faith and belief. It is only when beliefs are transmitted to us by others that we become religious. That is why people all over the world worship different Gods.
It is said that a person cannot be reasoned out of something that they have not been reasoned into. But it happens all the time.
Those who ‘despise’ the ‘knowledge of the heart’ often simply regard it as unreliable. Religions cannot all be right.
Anthropologists have actually observed the birth of new religions, in particular in Pacific Melanesia and New Guinea. These cults sprang up rapidly and independently on different islands, where misapprehensions led to the worship of unlikely individuals who visited their land. This gives rise to questions about human psychology and its susceptibility to religion.
Atheists are often idealists who wring their hands when they see religion, and other agencies, wreaking havoc in the world. Things such as:
– The Pope’s refusal to allow contraception, causing poverty and illness through over-population and
needless deaths from Aids.
– The treatment of women as second class citizens, or worse. Men permitted, with textual backing, to
‘discipline’ their wives.
– The persecution of homosexuals.
– The treatment of apostates.
– Ritual slaughter, causing extra pain and distress for animals.
– FGM, and in the Jewish faith, MGM- circumcision.
– Wars between religious factions over whose interpretation is correct.
– Fundamentalists using text to justify atrocities such as stoning and beheading.
Moderates seem to do be unable to do anything about it. You yourself, Tariq, felt able to call only for a moratorium on the practice of stoning, as the argument for a cessation would immediately have been rejected.
How can ethics be debated if participants have a dogmatic view of the unchangeable nature of a text?
As Sam Harris states,
‘By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question- i.e., that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us – religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness.’