Goals, Humility & Respect

Reposting here what was originally a two-part note on my facebook timeline on 9 and 10 September 2013.

After reading my facebook update last Friday, a few of my fb friends asked, ‘what was it about the khutbah (sermon) that brought me to tears?’ Did the khatib mention something that reminded me of my late wife Aishah?’ No, that was not the case, but let me explain.  

First-of-all, I have to admit, I didn’t really know who the khatib, Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan, was before last week. I did view one of his talks on youtube some time ago. That talk was ok but it didn’t impress me that much for me to search for more. Last Friday however, at the IIUM masjid, he gave a khutbah I honestly believe to be one of the best I’ve ever heard.

The khutbah was essentially a call to reflect, ‘why am I a Muslim?’ A rather common topic really but the questions he posed and the analogies he gave really struck a chord with me for they are exactly the issues I have been grappling with lately.

Ustadh Nouman began by asking ‘what is your ideal?’ For some, it’s about having a nice house and a nice car. For others, it’s about respect and recognition, while for some others, it could well be all about fame, money and glory.

My ideal or goal in life has always been to help and to serve. Ideally, I would want to do something where I am able to personally and directly help others. During my brief stint at UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), I started as programme assistant. I worked mainly in the office perusing documents and drafting project proposals; something that bored the life out of me.

Later, as a TP (temporary protection) screener, I was asked to interview people applying for refugee status. I had to talk to them and listen to their personal stories. I was a TP screener for only two months, but those two months remain among the best and most satisfying times in my entire working life.  

Someone asked me recently, what would I want my son to be when he grows up? “A nurse”, that was the answer that came instantly to my mind. This was around the time when my late neighbour was first hospitalised. At first, he was at the main ward but when his condition worsened, he was transferred to intensive care.
 
All the nurses I saw at the hospital were women. I know that is not something to be surprised about. What surprised me though is a sudden realisation that there is a serious need for every hospital to have male nurses; for several reasons.

For instance, I observed at both the ward and ICU, there were more male patients than there were females. Some of these patients were really ill. They needed help for almost everything. Some of them however, physically were quite big and tall, whereas the female nurses were physically smaller and of shorter height.

Don’t get me wrong, those nurses I saw, despite their physical disadvantage, were indeed very skilful and professional but I just wondered whether being cared for by a male nurse would perhaps make those male patients feel more comfortable?

Being a nurse is not easy. The job requires one to be patient, compassionate and firmly grounded; qualities commonly stereotyped with women. A man however, have those qualities too, hence, should not have a problem performing the role of a nurse.

I certainly will not be pressuring my son to become a nurse. That itself is not my goal. My goal is to raise him in such a way that he shall never consider the idea of becoming a nurse something repugnant. Indeed I would love it for him to consider it desirable for the unique opportunities it will give him to personally serve and help others.

And this was essentially the point Ustadh Nouman tried to put across. The ideal or goal for every Muslim is not cars, fame and money. The goal is to serve Allah and to serve others in this world. There is nothing wrong about wanting to be rich and famous. But to be rich by itself is not the goal. It is a means to attain a higher goal.

Ustadh Nouman said many great things last Friday, but there was one I find particularly mind-boggling. He said, “the ultimate reminder to those who would serve Allah's din (is), don't think highly of yourself; (and) don't think you are better than the people you are trying to serve."

I grew-up during the time when self-improvement books were extremely popular. Early in my youth, I read numerous books by various motivation ‘gurus’ like Anthony Robbins, Stephen Covey, Zig Ziglair and Dale Carnegie. Indeed there is a lot to be gained from their books and it would be stupid of me to deny the positive effects they’ve had in the lives of many.

I have this feeling however, that reading too much into them may lead to a few unintended negative consequences. These consequences include an exaggerated sense of self-worth, delusions of grandeur, arrogance, and a lack of respect for the abilities of others.

While conventional approaches to motivation are driven by self-centred concepts like self-worth and self-esteem, motivation in Islam, as indicated by Ustadh Nouman; embraces a rather different philosophy. It starts from a clear understanding on the purpose of our creation and the responsibility it entails; and the need to carry out those responsibilities with sincerity and humility.

Sincerity and humility however, are values that are difficult to define and impossible to measure. We may claim that we are sincere and humble but how do we know really that we have those attributes?

I am blessed by Allah with great memory; episodic memory especially. I observe more, and talk and mingle less. Throughout my life, I have seen how people change. I have seen how a two-letter-prefix can change a person’s attitude and personality. I have seen too how a piece of metal on a ribbon can heighten a person’s sense of importance and sense of entitlement.

It’s hard however, to be too critical of all this because they are part of the reality of today’s society; a society where you need to promote and push yourself to the limelight in order to succeed. The challenge then is to know how to remain, on one hand, sincere and humble, and on the other, ambitious and determined.

Continuous self-reflection is what we all need. We need to do something too that helps keep our feet firmly on the ground, and ensure our children are nurtured to do so as well. However, as much as I try now as a parent to mould my children’s character and instil certain values into them, there will be a point in their lives where my influence on them will weaken and disappear. From thereon, they will have to make their own choices. The only thing I can do is to ensure they have the necessary spiritual and analytical tools to make the right choices.

Hence, Ustadh Nouman’s advice to not think highly of ourselves is most apt. It correlates with another of his advice that as Muslims, we should not be easily satisfied. That Malaysia is a country currently blessed with economic success and a peaceful society is not an excuse for us to rest on our laurels. We should always think about what we can do more.

We have responsibilities both to ourselves and to the society. As Ustadh Nouman explains, if you are aware of injustices, corruption and other wrongdoings in the society, it is your duty as a Muslim to speak-up and do something about it. It is not enough to say ‘somebody will do it’. Instead, ask yourself, ‘why is that somebody not you?’

Ustadh Nouman closes his khutbah with a beautiful reminder on the importance of respect; another issue I've been struggling with. I’ve been trying to teach my children never to use words like Keling, Bangla, Indon, Awang Hitam and other derogatory terms when referring to others; a monumental task really in the face of overwhelming usage and indifference in the society. But I will keep on trying.

Ustadh Nouman explains that a Muslim should show respect and never assume he is better than a non-Muslim. If indeed you think you are better than your non-Muslim friend, think about what would happen if tomorrow that friend embraces Islam. He will have his slate wiped clean and would instantly be, in the eyes of Allah, a better person than you.

I believe the key towards genuine respect is a genuine sense of humility. Humility is the shield that protects us from spiritual diseases of ujub (vanity) and kibr (sense of superiority). A person who is conscious of his humble existence would be mindful about not wanting to hurt the feelings of others. And he will show respect to all regardless of gender, status, race, creed and nationality.

Allahu’alam.

What I hate about politics...

Early during my college days (at PPP/ITM, Shah Alam), since I had probably impressed some of my English instructors with my above-average fluency in English, I was asked to attend trials for the college English debate team. I wasn't really keen to attend but did so nonetheless out of respect for one of my instructors who really wanted me to try.

So I went, and was randomly assigned as the first debater for the opposition side. My task was, well, to oppose whatever it was the arguments presented by the proposition. Alas, sitting on my chair listening to the first debater from the affirmative side passionately explaining her points for the motion, I began to feel how strongly in agreement I was with most of her points. But I was conscious of the fact that my task was to disagree and I should be focused on doing just that.

When I spoke however, my words betrayed me as I went on to commit one of the most fundamental mistakes in a debate - expressing my agreement with my opponent's point-of-view. The topic was on media censorship and my opponent had just argued why children should not be exposed to violence and sexual content in movies. To me, that made perfect sense, so I told myself "how and why should I disagree". Agreeing with and conceding to your opponent are sure ways to lose a debate, and I did end-up losing that debate. And quite obviously, I was not selected to join the college debating team.

To defend your arguments at all cost and to never concede that your opponent might be right are the essentials of partisan politics too. The goal and dream of every politician is to successfully portray himself as someone who knows the answers to all the problems in the history of mankind and to portray his opponent as a complete idiot. The problem with that is; as anyone with even a tiny-bit of objectivity would agree, no one has the answers to everything.

In ancient Greece, there was a group of people renowned for their oratory and persuasive skills. They are commonly referred to as the Sophists. The Sophists were intellectuals skilled in the use of rhetoric. Their goal was to persuade and impress their audience. Whether their words represent their beliefs and conviction was not of their concern. The truth is not important. Winning is all that matters.

Socrates detested the Sophists. He himself was a skilled orator but to him, the goal of every argument and dialogue is to establish the truth. And if one's argument is proven to be wrong, he should concede and gracefully acknowledge the veracity of others' opinion. The Sophists however were known to resort to cynicism and relativism when cornered.

Politicians today (most of them at least) are not dissimilar to the Sophists. To them, winning the argument is all that matters. Whether they represent the truth or whether you even believe in what you say is not really important. Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate in this year's US presidential election is a prime example. During the Republican primaries, in order to secure the support from fellow Republicans, Romney painted a picture of himself as a true conservative on every single issue; healthcare, abortion, taxes, government etc. Now that he is the Republican candidate, his focus has shifted to middle-ground voters so, quite conveniently, he is now portraying himself more as a centrist and less conservative.

You can convince some, even many perhaps that your shifting of views is a non-issue but for the more analytical and perceptive among us, it is something deeply disturbing. Why? Because ideally, we want a leader with principles and conviction, one who is honest and truthful in all his words and actions. We don't want a leader who is more like a prototype salesman who is willing to say anything to clinch a deal. Sooner-or-later, your flip-flop tendency will be exposed and your own words will come back to haunt you.

Like the Sophists, politicians too often resort to cynicism when their principles and views are seriously questioned. The key is to deflect attention away from yourself by using negative politics. Essentially, this is all about painting the picture that your opponent is utterly useless and incompetent. And by doing so, you hope to persuade people to support you not necessarily because they like you and your ideas, but because they hate your opponent and his policies so much they are willing to vote for anyone except him.

What is ironic about this is, a politician is supposedly concerned about all that is good for the country, but if for example you are in the opposition and you do not want people to continue to support the government, you would actually be happy whenever there is a negative report about the country. Consciously, or subconsciously at least, you would want every single policy undertaken by the current government to fail; the more devastating the failure the better. Because the more the government is seen to have failed, the more the people will hate the government, and the more willing they will be to vote them out and vote for you instead in the next election.

We see this everywhere, in the US, in Malaysia and other countries all over the world. Mitt Romney for example seems happy to make the argument that President Barack Obama's economic policies in the last four years have all failed. And each time a report on the US economy comes out, he and his supporters have painstakingly extrapolate every single negative aspect in it, and while doing so ignoring whatever positives it may contain.

This is the thing about politics that I really, really hate. Having said that, I accept that this is part-and-parcel, perhaps even the bread-and-butter of politics. It is not the arena for idealists, and I do consider myself an idealist. Hence, I have no business to ever be directly involved in politics. The cognitive dissonance that comes with it would be unbearable. But then, Allahu'alam, like many other things in life, you can never say "never"!

"None of you believes till..."

Despite what I still consider to be an immensely disappointing movie, Revenge of The Sith, the last of the Star Wars movies did have a few memorable moments. Most poignant, as far as the story line is concerned, was a scene that had very little special effects, very few movements and no dialogue.

It was the scene just before Anakin Skywalker turned to the Dark Side. Master Windu had gone to confront Chancellor Palpatine and he ordered Anakin to remain at the Jedi Temple and wait for his return. Anakin of course at this point, his mind was messed, torn, and confused... He is a Jedi who had just discovered that the Chancellor is the elusive Sith Lord. He had premonitions of his wife's death and the Sith Lord was the only person who had offered to help. The Jedi way of course was to let go and allow fate to run its course. But that is exactly the one thing that Anakin, a young man so much in love with his secret wife cannot bring himself to do.

The beauty of this scene is the way it depicts emotional suffering. Anakin, for all his obvious powers, cannot and should not attempt to change fate but when you are told there is perhaps a way to do so, how can you not be tortured by the thought that you should at least try? That thought ran through his mind as he sat alone at the Jedi Council's chambers. He stood up and walked to the window overlooking his wife's residence from a distance. As he stood there, unknown to him his wife too was standing by her window staring at the Jedi Temple with deep concerns about how her young husband was battling with his premonitions. When Anakin could no longer bear waiting, he decided to leave the temple in an apparent attempt to change fate. And the rest, as they say is 'history'.

Love may energise but may also lead you astray and weaken you beyond your imagination. There was once in my life my thoughts and emotions were so consumed by deep affections towards someone, so deep that it was disturbing me even during my prayers. I remember hating myself for having such feelings as I thought I was immune from all these.

Immune from these I was not and when I could no longer get them contained, I confided to a few close friends seeking their advice on what I should do. All except one, encouraged me to approach the person to get to know her better with a clear intention of marrying her. The one dissenting view however was Yoda-esque, a startling yet profound words of advice; "If indeed the feelings you have for this sister are as deep and strong as you described, do not marry her! You will always be weak."

Followed his advice I did not as a few weeks later, I personally approached the person. Fortunately, I was rejected. Strangely enough, whatever feelings of disappointment I had was very much diluted by the overwhelming sense of relief I felt once everything was off my chest. And because of that, I was able to move on, and the whole emotional episode soon enough became rather insignificant.

That was my first experience with 'love'. Quite an ordeal it was but a necessary and an invaluable learning experience indeed. "I really learned a lot, really learned a lot, love is like a flame, it burns you when it's hot" Probably Nazareth was a tad too pessimistic here about love but to be outrageously optimistic like what Celine Dion once sang; "I'm everything I am because you loved me", can't be right either, can it? Loving someone can be exhausting... so does knowing someone is in love with you but for some reasons you cannot and will never reciprocate.

The Prophet (may peace be upon him) explained: "None of you (truly) believes till he loves me more than his father, his children and all mankind." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Hadith 15)

Certainly, the hadith tells us of the importance of loving the Messenger of Allah, but underlying it is a bigger spiritual message on how to manage and prioritise love. And this was further expounded by Imam Al-Ghazali in Book 36; on Love, Longing, Intimacy and Contentment, of his Ihya Ulum al-Din.  Al-Ghazali cited the above hadith early in this chapter along with a few more ahadith that bore the same opening phrase, "none of you believes till..."

A literal reading of these ahadith would perhaps lead some to argue that the Prophet was rather histrionic; a trait characterised by a desire to be the centre of everyone's attention. Such an argument however, is both misleading and malicious. The focus here is not on the Prophet the messenger but the message. And the message is the religion of Islam in which God is Supreme, the Creator from Whom we came and to Whom we shall return.

Faith in God is central to everything. All our actions, words and intentions ought to be those that pleases Him, as taught and exemplified by the Prophet (peace be upon him). To love God is to do what pleases Him in accordance with the teachings of the Prophet. If that is indeed the love most dear to a person, his conviction on what is vice and virtuous will remain strong in all circumstances. But if the love most dear to him is centred around another person; a spouse, a lover, a parent or a child, he may be tempted to commit evil and sacrifice his faith and conviction in the name of love.

Sadly though, the world is filled with love stories where irrational sacrifices are made in the name of love. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is a prominent example. A glorious love story, I contend, it is not but a story of supreme foolishness and of misplaced priorities. Why? Because in a period of not more than three days, Romeo and Juliet met and fell instantly in love, and from thereon were prepared to kill, denounce their respective families and take their own lives. How such actions therefore are worthy of applauds and admiration is just bewildering.

At least in Anakin Skywalker's case, he was in love with a former queen whom he had adored for many years. His action however remains wrong. It was wrong of him to let his deep feelings for someone; no matter how dear she was to him, cloud his judgment and lead him to betray his teachers.

Likewise for Heinz; of the famed vignettes by Lawrence Kohlberg. No matter how much Heinz may love his wife, to steal medicines for her would be wrong. Whether your wife lives or dies is beyond your control. And medicines are not magical antidotes. For the pharmacist to charge such an exorbitant amount of money is indeed wrong, but two wrongs do not make something right. In such difficult circumstances is where faith is paramount.

So, should we all then not let ourselves develop feelings and emotions towards anyone? Is falling in love such a terrible thing? Certainly not. But the focus should be more; in reference to Sternberg's theory, on companionate love rather than romantic and infatuation love. And as Muslims, we are asked to seek those who may bring us closer to God, and those who may help unleash the good within us. For a widowed single father-of-three for whom midlife crisis has come early, these are my hope and prayers exactly.

...vegetable

The Logical Song
Songwriters: Davies, R; Hodgson, R;

When I was young
It seemed that life was so wonderful
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical
And all the birds in the trees
Well they'd be singing so happily
Joyfully, playfully watching me

But then they send me away
To teach me how to be sensible
Logical, responsible, practical
And then they showed me a world
Where I could be so dependable
Clinical, intellectual, cynical

There are times when all the world's asleep
The questions run too deep for such a simple man
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
I know it sounds absurd but please tell me who I am

I say, "Now what would you say for they calling you a radical
Liberal, fanatical, criminal?"
Won't you sign up your name? We'd like to feel you're
Acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable

At night when all the world's asleep
The questions run so deep for such a simple man
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
I know it sounds absurd but please tell me who I am
Who I am, who I am, who I am...

[ From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/s/supertramp-lyrics/the-logical-song-lyrics.html ]

Disillusioned II (Redemption)

Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who has been so kind to leave comments in my blog particularly those that were made on my previous post. I wish to clarify a few things about that post and simultaneously respond to some of the comments made.

Students who took the course History & Philosophy of Psychology with me would probably recall my fascination with the ideas of a certain philosopher of science named Paul Feyerabend. Feyerabend was a controversial figure who advocated the argument that science does not need strict methodologies. His most famous book was aptly titled Against Method in which his main thesis was, in science "anything goes".

As someone who has always been quite uncomfortable with strict adherence with methods and methodologies, Feyerabend's ideas were certainly very appealing. Here is a philosopher who has written exactly about what I've been struggling with philosophically and intellectually. In all these years that I've been a student and teacher of psychology, I've never been able to really embrace the conventional notion of what is scientific and what is not. I certainly do not think that pure objectivity is ever possible and I find many of the so called 'scientific' arguments in the humanities and social sciences very pedantic and superficial.

This is the 'demon' that has haunted me for many years that no matter how much I read and try to impress myself with 'scientific' academic work, almost always I end up feeling dissatisfied and disillusioned. Haunted by this still I am as I continue to struggle this past year conceptualising my doctoral research. The dilemma here is, how to remain true and honest to my philosophical beliefs while accepting that adherence to certain rules and principles is mandatory?

That is me and my confused state of thinking. While I continue with my own internal struggle, I have never and will never look at it as a way to elevate myself above others. Others are entitled to form their own opinion and I respect them for that. Allow me to put it on record here that my previous post was never intended to criticise in any way any of my colleagues and friends. If indeed I have hurt anyone's feelings, please accept my apology.

Let me now explain the context behind my general criticism against academicians written in my previous post. Since my doctoral research is essentially about ethnic relations in Malaysia, I've been reading various literatures on the issue available across all fields of social sciences. I was impressed by many of these work but cannot honestly say the same for some others. What I find to be very disconcerting on one hand, are scholars/writers who pass simplistic and bias conclusions. And on the other, those who dwell too much on fancy terminologies and theories while offering little in real substance. Of course, one is entitled to express his/her subjective opinions. But an academic by right should know how to refrain him/herself from passing unfair judgments against others.

If I may briefly offer an example, on the issue of the education system in Malaysia particularly the argument for and against national schools and vernacular schools, I do not think for once there are any sides who are totally right or totally wrong. Such a complex issue should be analysed in all its complexities. I can understand if a politician argues in such a way that he projects the blame totally to a particular group. Politicians are concern about being popular hence they often resort to petty and simplistic arguments. But when an academician resorts to the same sort of argument, I find that very sad and annoying.

I hope this post will help clarify a few things. Certainly, many things I've written here have touched the surface of various intellectual and philosophical issues that I hope to discuss and write more about in the future. Ma'as salamah!

Keluarga atau Negara?

(Berikut adalah artikel saya yang diterbitkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives pada 22 Julai 2010 di bawah tajuk 'Jika PM guna wang negara selamatkan perniagaan anak')

Dalam salah satu episod siri drama televisyen popular 24, presiden Amerika Syarikat, Presiden Allison Taylor (seorang wanita) digambarkan berhadapan dengan dilema yang amat berat. Anak perempuannya telah mengaku mengupah seseorang untuk membunuh seorang saksi yang telah diberi imuniti dan perlindungan oleh kerajaan.

Ada sebabnya saksi ini dibunuh. Saksi ini adalah seorang tahanan yang bertanggungjawab membunuh anak lelaki presiden. Maka adik perempuannya mahu membalas dendam atas pembunuhan abangnya. Namun, ibunya selaku presiden bukan sahaja tidak mendakwa saksi ini atas kesalahannya itu, malah memberikan imuniti kepadanya sebagai syarat beliau bekerjasama memberkas penjahat-penjahat yang lain.

Bayangkan dilema yang dihadapi Presiden Taylor? Beliau ada dua orang anak. Seorang telah mati dibunuh. Yang seorang lagi kini berhadapan hukuman mati atau penjara seumur hidup. Yang mati tidak boleh dihidupkan kembali namun yang hidup masih boleh dilindungi.

Yang boleh mengaitkan anak perempuan presiden dengan jenayah ini ialah sebuah pita rakaman yang merakamkan perbualan antara anak presiden itu dan orang yang mengatur pembunuhan tersebut. Sekiranya pita rakaman itu dimusnahkan, tidak ada bukti lain yang boleh membuktikan penglibatan anak perempuan presiden dalam kes tersebut.

Suami Presiden Taylor mengesyorkan agar pita rakaman itu dimusnahkan. Beliau menyaran isterinya menggunakan kuasanya sebagai presiden untuk melindungi anak mereka. Lebih-lebih lagi, orang yang dibunuh itu ialah orang yang bertanggungjawab sebelumnya membunuh anak lelaki mereka.

Berdepan dengan pilihan antara tanggungjawab sebagai seorang ibu dan isteri, dan tanggungjawab sebagai presiden yang bersumpah untuk mematuhi perlembagaan negara, yang mana patut dipilih? Mungkin situasi dramatik seperti ini tidak berlaku dalam realiti. Namun dilema seumpamanya dalam situasi yang berbeza pasti boleh berlaku.

Bayangkan seorang perdana menteri, anaknya berdepan masalah kewangan yang kritikal; perniagaannya hampir musnah dan hutangnya bertimbun. Dilihat akan si bapa akan anaknya yang muram dan sengsara, adakah si bapa selaku perdana menteri patut berdiam diri sahaja tanpa melakukan apa-apa?

Selaku perdana menteri, beliau punya kuasa dan pengaruh. Beliau boleh menggunakan sumber kewangan negara untuk menyelamatkan perniagaan anaknya. Perniagaan anaknya itu pun memang perniagaan strategik yang penting untuk negara. Walaupun ianya melibatkan anaknya sendiri, tidak salah rasanya menggunakan dana awam untuk membantunya.

Mungkin secara peribadi, perdana menteri itu mahu membiarkan anaknya merana memikul tanggungjawab kegagalan perniagaannya. Hasratnya agar undang-undang negara dipatuhi dan sumber kewangan negara tidak digunakan untuk tujuan peribadi. Namun bila isteri dan ahli-ahli keluarga yang lain turut mendesak agar bantuan diberi, mampukah perdana menteri itu berpeluk tubuh berpegang pada prinsip?

Jika perdana menteri itu tetap teguh berpegang pada prinsip, beliau berdepan risiko berlakunya perpecahan dalam keluarganya sendiri. Dalam drama televisyen 24, Presiden Taylor telah dengan berberat hati menyerahkan anaknya ke pihak berkuasa. Permintaan suaminya agar bukti pita rakaman dimusnahkan tidak ditunaikan. Suaminya marah dan kecewa sehingga membuat keputusan bercerai dengan isterinya.

Dialog falsafah antara Socrates dan Euthypro wajar dijadikan renungan dalam hal ini. Euthypro merupakan seorang pakar perundangan pada zaman Greek purba. Pada suatu hari, beliau terserempak dengan Socrates di perkarangan mahkamah. Tujuan Euthypro ke situ pada hari tersebut ialah untuk mendakwa ayah kandungnya sendiri atas tuduhan membunuh.

Socrates terpegun melihat akan seorang anak yang bersedia mendakwa ayahnya sendiri. Namun Euthypro berkeras bahawa tindakannya itu adalah satu tindakan yang mulia dan soleh. Maka tercetuslah dialog antara mereka akan apakah sebenarnya takrif kemuliaan dan kesolehan itu sendiri.

Socrates melontarkan pendapat bahawa kemuliaan dan kesolehan itu adalah sebahagian daripada keadilan. Namun beliau sendiri kemudiannya menyoal, adakah semua yang mulia dan soleh itu adil dan saksama?

Memang mudah untuk kita menyangkal, tidak ada yang kabur tentang apa itu sifat yang soleh dan mulia dan apa itu keadilan. Namun hakikatnya, lain orang lain pandangannya dan neraca keadilan mereka mungkin tidak sama.

Di kalangan ahli-ahli politik dan pemimpin negara, ada yang berfikir adalah adil bagi mereka menggunakan sedikit kuasa dan pengaruh untuk kepentingan diri sendiri dan keluarga. Rasionalnya, setelah begitu banyak masa dan tenaga dikorbankan untuk orang lain, kenapa tidak sedikit manfaat dan habuan diambil untuk diri sendiri?

Dan jika anak-anak atau ahli-ahli terdekat keluarga yang lain terlibat dalam sedikit masalah, kenapa tidak digunakan kuasa untuk menutup masalah itu? Kenapa tidak digunakan serba sedikit harta dan instrumen kerajaan? Kenapa tidak diarahkan pihak berkuasa tidak mengambil tindakan? Jika buruk imej keluarga pemimpin negara, buruk juga nama negara? Maka, bukankah ‘adil’ sekiranya imej pemimpin dan keluarganya dilindungi untuk kepentingan bersama?

Tidak mustahil inilah corak pemikiran yang ada di kalangan pemimpin-pemimpin negara. Soalnya sekarang, adakah kita mahu pemimpin yang mentalitinya seperti ini atau pemimpin seperti Presiden Allison Taylor dalam drama 24?

Sudah pasti, yang lebih baik adalah yang seperti Presiden Taylor. Namun itu watak di dunia fantasi. Realitinya bagaimana? Tuhan sahaja yang Maha Mengetahui banyak mana pemimpin-pemimpin negara yang tidak teguh prinsipnya.

Kesimpulannya, barangsiapa yang merasakan pegangan prinsipnya tidak seteguh Presiden Taylor, janganlah sesekali mengimpikan apa jua jawatan politik yang melibatkan kepentingan negara. Yang sedia ada dalam kerajaan pula, jika pegangan prinsip anda juga tidak teguh, undurlah diri dengan segera sebelum bala menimpa.

FIFA World Cup: The Moral Equivalent of War

It was William James who first called for a moral equivalent of war. In his article published in 1910, James wrote:

"I spoke of the "moral equivalent" of war. So far, war has been the only force that can discipline a whole community, and until an equivalent discipline is organized, I believe that war must have its way. But I have no serious doubt that the ordinary prides and shames of social man, once developed to a certain intensity, are capable of organizing such a moral equivalent as I have sketched, or some other just as effective for preserving manliness of type. It is but a question of time, of skilful propogandism, and of opinion-making men seizing historic opportunities."

Football (or soccer) was probably the last thing in James' mind when he wrote this classic piece. In fact, what he suggested then was, we should all go to work at coal and iron mines, and spend our energies for dish-washing, clothes-washing, window-washing, road-building and tunnel-making! He also did not mention anything about the Olympic Games, which at the time was beginning to grow as a major international sporting event.

James himself was rather clueless about what the moral equivalent of war is, but there is no doubt today that sports is the closest to James' vision. While many would argue that the Olympic Games is the biggest sporting event of all, I have no doubt that as far as the moral equivalent of war is concern, the FIFA World Cup is the better candidate.

There are too many different games in the Olympics which means only a few big nations can realistically become the overall champion. In the World Cup however, all the 32 teams competing in the finals have the same number of players and play the same number of matches in the opening round. That puts all the teams more-or-less on equal footing.

Moreover, football as a game embodies a lot of our psychological nature. Psychologists have for long believe that human beings have an innate desire to compete. And in addition, with reference to the Freudian perspective, have the need for catharsis; to release some of the overabundance psychic energy.

People in the past went to war because that was probably the only social event which gives them the opportunity to compete and collectively release some psychic energy. Understandably, war is filled with aggressive and destructive behaviours that are simply the manifestations of the energy released.

Football provides the same opportunity. In this game, players need to be aggressive to win. Similar to a battle in a war, a football game cannot be won by strength and skills alone. It must be supported by clever tactics and strategies. And most importantly, football is a team game where teamwork is of paramount importance although the heroics of individuals can prove to be crucial; again very similar to what happens in war battles.

We no longer live in times where envy, pride and jealousy would propel someone to physically destroy the enemy (at least not most of the time). These 'sins' still exist between and against people of different nations. But rather than going to war against the enemy, the battle can be fought on the football field. Players representing each nation are the soldiers who battle to preserve the honour of the country, while the spectators are the common citizens who watch with pride the valiancy of their 'warriors' fighting on their behalf. And the best thing of all about football is, there is minimal chance of civilian casualties.

The 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa offers the prospect of some tantalising encounters. As early as the second round, either England or the United States may battle against Germany. Of course, none of the players of these countries were around during the First and Second World Wars, but the memories of both would surely spice-up the build-up to such an encounter.

Meanwhile, at the quarter-final stage; if both teams advance as expected, England and Argentina will do battle, a match that would surely bring up memories of the bitter Falklands War fought by the two nations. Argentinian football legend and current national head coach Diego Maradona has repeatedly said that beating England in the 1986 World Cup was the sweetest moment in his football career. No doubt this was largely because of the bitterness carried over from the Falklands War. If the two nations do meet again this year, the reciprocal animosity between players and fans from both countries will again be the focus of attention.

If England advances to the semi-final stage, their likely opponent is Holland, which is another juicy encounter. After more than a century where people from both countries fought a long and bitter war in South Africa (the Second Boer War), they may do battle again on the very same soil, this time for the honour and pride of advancing to a world cup final match.

Football may well be a silly old game where 22 grown-ups run like crazy chasing after a white ball. But football today is more than just a game. The FIFA World Cup, football's biggest tournament is the moral equivalent of war where people of different nations battle for their nations' pride and glory. There is no need to bludgeon your opponents to win this 'war'. All you need is the right tactics and strategies and to fight on the field in the name your country. And the satisfaction of winning would be just as sweet.

Existential Vaccum Revisited

One of my favourite books of all time is Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. Dr. Frankl, who founded the clinical psychological technique called logotherapy, was a resident at the Nazi-German's concentration camps during World War II. In the first part of the book, Dr. Frankl wrote about his observation of how some of his fellow inmates were able to withstand all the sufferrings while some others quite simply gave up, refused to try, and eventually die. Those who survived, according to Dr. Frankl, had one thing in common - they all had reasons to live and those reasons kept them alive no matter what.

In the second part of his book, Dr. Frankl explains what he believes to be a modern phenomenon - the existential vacuum. Dr. Frankl believes the reason why many people today are stressful and depressed is because they do not have a reason to live. Today, there are many who live their lives based on hedonistic principles where everyday is just like any other day to maximise pleasure and minimise stress. Not much thought is given on how one may contribute to more profound goals in live, and on how to carry one's responsiblities beyond the essential and necessary.

We are servants of God, children of our parents, parents to our children, members of our organisations etc. All these ought to give us many reasons to live to fill-up the existential vacuum which Dr. Frankl had explained.

Perhaps Dr. Frankl wasn't quite right to say that there is a vacuum. The reasons to live are there and they are part of our existence regardless of whether we know and understand them. Perhaps the real challenge is to be conscious of and internalise the right reasons to live. When a fanatical football fan kills himself when the team he supports loses a championship game, his problem is not that he does not have a reason to live. His problem was having the wrong reason for his existence.

My life today revolves almost entirely around my family. My children especially, are my reasons to live and persevere come whatever may. But sometimes I do wonder, is that a good enough reason to define my existence?

Wanting Something So Much...

There are a few movies which after watching them, had left me completely dumbfounded. One of them is an Iranian movie called 'The Bride' (released in 1990). Starring the famous Iranian actress Niki Karimi, the movie tells a story of a young man who, after much struggle and perseverance, finally managed to marry the woman of his dreams.

Sounds more like a romantic fairytale, isn’t it? But this movie has such a surprising twist it left me wondering how a common incident in life can indeed lead to tragic and unfortunate consequences.

The opening scene of the movie shows how the man was made to agree by his then future father-in-law to achieve a set of conditions before he could be allowed to marry the daughter. I can't recall exactly what these conditions were but there were difficult enough that the young man took more than two years before finally achieving them.

After the wedding, the ecstatic young man drove his bride to their honeymoon. Throughout the journey, he was in such jovial mood he boasted to his wife about how proud he was to marry her despite the trouble her father had given him. He even boasted about some illicit ventures he was involved in during the years he struggled to meet her father’s conditions. Though not entirely amused by her husband’s antics, the wife was nonetheless happy and was looking forward to their future together when SUDDENLY...

...an old lady appeared from nowhere walking slowly to cross the street. Since the man was still preoccupied with his boasting of his 'achievement', he didn’t see the old lady until it was too late. He knocked her down unconscious, but... she was not dead.

Amazingly, the man refused to neither bring the old lady to the hospital nor report the accident to the police. Instead, he removed the body from the road and placed it inside his car trunk. Horrified by her husband's actions, she pleaded to him to do what is right and follow the course of the law. Her husband stubbornly refused and his very reason was something like: "I have struggled and sacrificed so much to marry you. If I bring the old lady to the hospital, the police will investigate the accident and I may be found guilty and be put to jail. I will be separated from you. I will NOT let that happen!"

When we want something so much, we may act in such irrational ways that betray our conscience and moral-logical principles. No doubt we will be burdened by a deep psychological tension but this can quite comfortably be neutralised by the defence mechanisms of denial and rationalisation. Desperate people think and act in desperate ways. They believe in their own perception of destiny, clouded surely by some delusions of their own invincibility.

Be-as-that-may, in the end, the truth will prevail, always...

Story of the Reed

"The cry of the flute is indeed fire, not air; He who lacks fire, may he die in despair.

It's a blaze of love that sets the reed on fire; It's the yearning of love that wine boils in desire.

Only the sense-less can the hold the sense so dear; Where can ever the tongue find a better fan than ear."

These are excerpts from Professor Amir Zekrgroo's own translation of the Preface of Rumi’s Mathnawi, the "Ney-Nameh", or the "Story of the Reed" presented yesterday in the second of his series of lectures on ‘Rumi and his Mathnawi’. (Click here to access the original Persian and various English translation of the Ney-Nameh)

The story of the reed begins as a story of pain, the pain of separation from one's habitat and nature; a mythical way of expressing a lover's infinite longing for The Beloved. This represents the deep spirituality of the Sufis, who yearn for none other than God’s love and blessings.

For centuries, people have cut bamboo reeds to make flutes and pens for writing; the former emits the beautiful sound of the wind, and the latter the splendid art of beautiful writings. One is amazed then, how a thin and bland stick could be so useful and soothing.

Professor Zekrgoo contends, the reed symbolises the perfect man, who is hollow of ego and worldly desires. As Muhammad Iqbal once exclaimed: "the ego is partly free, partly determined, and reaches fuller freedom by approaching the Individual who is most free: God."

When Rumi Met Tabrizi...

Professor Amir Zekrgoo of ISTAC, in his first of a series of lectures on ‘Jalalluddin Rumi and His Mathnavi’ presented last Friday, shared an interesting narration of the first meeting between Rumi and his spiritual companion Shamsuddin Tabrizi.

Rumi, who was already at the time a respected scholar and spiritual figure, was reading a book; immersed in deep concentration, when he was abruptly asked by the wandering dervish, "what are you doing?" Rumi replied, "something you cannot understand", to which Shams reacted by taking the book off Rumi’s hand and throw it to water! Rumi picked it up and was surprised to find none of the pages of the book was wet. He then asked Shams, "what are you doing?", and Shams replied, "something YOU cannot understand!"

Thus began one of the most intense spiritual relationships between two spiritual beings the world has ever known. And as Professor Zekrgoo asserts, Rumi’s association with Shams turned him "from an ‘alim (scholar) to an ‘arif (mystic)... and made a poet out of a preacher".

To Rumi, this was the life-changing and humbling experience which paved the way for his self-actualisation. The spiritual bond he had with Shams was the 'sparkle' that gave him the inspiration and spiritual zeal to express his creative ideas.

Many of us are still in search of that elusive 'sparkle' that we hope will change our lives forever and allow us to realise all our potentials. But how and where does one find that 'sparkle?' Or, should we not search for it and instead let the 'sparkle' finds us?

"Don’t search for water, search for thirst..." Hence the lesson; taught to me by Professor Fareed Ahmad on humility vis-á -vis knowledge: "the more you know, the more you know you don’t know". Or, as beautifully described by the Malay proverb: "ikut resmi padi, makin tunduk makin berisi"; the more knowledge one acquires, the more humble one should be.

Psychology, Culture and Indigenisation

(Below is an excerpt from my article bearing the same title above to be published in the forthcoming publication Psychology from the Islamic Perspective: A Guide to Teaching and Learning, Noraini Mohd Noor (Ed.), IIUM Press)

The primary task of this section is to clarify the differences between culture and religion. That the two concepts are different is a pre-conclusion of this discussion, and a deliberate attempt to confront the conventional assumption that religion is merely a component of culture.

'Culture' has been defined in many different ways in the different areas of social sciences. Some definitions focus on the functions of culture while others focus on the structures, representing respectively the functionalist and structuralist perspectives. The definition provided by Matsumoto and Juang (2004) attempts to integrate both these broad perspectives. Culture here is defined as:

"dynamic system of rules, explicit and implicit, established by groups, in order to ensure their survival, involving attitudes, values, beliefs, norms, and behaviours, shared by a group but harboured differently by each specific unit within the group, communicated across generations, relatively stable but with the potential to change across time."

Two key components of this definition are the structure of culture as a 'dynamic system of rules', and the function of culture 'to ensure survival'. Although a universally accepted definition of culture remains elusive, these two components are incorporated, in one form or another, in all definitions of culture.

'Religion' similarly does not have a universally acclaimed definition. However, what is arguably the most referred to definition of religion in the social sciences is the definition provided by social anthropologist Clifford Geertz. Geertz (1973) defined religion as:

"a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

Geertz’s definition of religion, on one hand, is a positive recognition of the function of religion, but on the other, a subtle attempt to de-sacrelise religion. Religion is described here as a cultural system that may not necessarily have a divine origin whose effect on human behaviour and emotions therefore, are merely matters of human perception.

As a cultural system, religion has to be dynamic. And a dynamic system, essentially, is not static, hence is always incline towards change and continuous revision. This, however, is not in agreement with the views of scholars of religions. From their perspective, religion is a system that clarifies the answers for five quintessential issues: theology, doctrine and rituals, scriptures, cosmology, and eschatology (Smart, 1989; Eliade, 1981). While there are indeed certain provisions for hermeneutic change and revision, these five issues are essentially religious dogmas from which pillars of religion are based upon.

Islam is dynamic as there are indeed avenues for new interpretations of the divine law (shari’ah). The door for ijtihad (revised interpretation) remains open for Islamic religious scholars to explore in view of circumstantial and contemporary challenges (Kamali, 1994). However, this avenue is restricted both in terms of subject areas and individual qualification. The five pillars of Islam for example, are not open for new revisions, nor are the articles of faith and other doctrinal aspects. Furthermore, the majority of opinion amongst the ulama’ (Muslim relgious scholar) would subscribe to the view that only a mujtahid (one with sufficient knowledge) is given the provision to exercise ijtihad. A Muslim who is not knowledgeable about Islam is to seek guidance from the learned, and not to decide on matters of religion based on his/her own rational justification and logical deduction.

Is Islam a cultural system? The Islamic faith is not a philosophy open for individual cultural perspective. Islam is a revealed religion, revealed by Allah SWT to His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him). The message of Islam is preserved in the form of a book, the Holy Quran, which is divinely protected from all forms of corruption.

The cultural manifestations of Islam however, do exist. The two sources of the shari’ah, the Holy Quran and ahadith (Prophetic tradition); provide the general guide for Islamic conduct and responsibility. How these general guidelines are applied and manifested depends on cultural and individual preferences. For example, Muslim women are obliged to cover their awrah, which allows them to expose only the palm and the face. This is the general guide. How a Muslim woman fulfils this depends on her personal and cultural preferences. A Muslim woman in Malaysia would normally use the Malay traditional baju kurung, while a Muslim woman in Pakistan would normally use the traditional shawal kamis. Both these cultural manifestations are acceptable as long as they adhere to the guidelines in the shari’ah.

The religion of Islam is referred to in the Quran as ad-Din, a concept that explains Islam not only as a belief or cultural system but an all-encompassing entity that provides guidance for a distinct way of life and answers to the very purpose of one’s existence (al-Faruqi, 1982). Such attributes clearly goes beyond and above the realm of culture as explained in Western social sciences. With this Islamic worldview, compared to Western psychology, an Islamic indigenous psychology would naturally operate from a quite different epistemological assumption. As observed by Murken (cited in Khalili et al, 2002), secular Western psychology considers religion as merely one example of a cultural subsystem, i.e. a set of variable in research. In Islamic psychology however, religion (i.e. Islam) is the basis and framework for everything. Islam is not a variable to be evaluated, but the very principle that guides the judgment and understanding of Muslim psychologists both in research and practice. Herein lies the unique characteristic of Islamic indigenous psychology as espoused in much of the work on the Islamization of psychology.

References:

Al Faruqi, I.R. (1982). Al-Tawhid: Its implications for thought and life. Virginia: International Institute of Islamic Thought.

Eliade, M. (1981). A history of religious ideas. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Kamali, M.H. (1994). Freedom of expression in Islam. Kuala Lumpur: Berita Publishing.

Khalili, S., Murken, S., Reich, K.H., Shah, A.A. & Vahabzadeh, A. (2002). Religion and mental health in cultural perspective: Observations and reflections after the First International Congress on Religion and Mental Health, Tehran, 16-19 April 2001. The International Journal of the Psychology of Religion. 12(4), 217-237.

Matsumoto, D. & Juang, L. (2004). Culture and psychology. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Smart, N. (1989). The world’s religions. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Classics in Psychology

I have been teaching the course History and Philosophy of Psychology at the university for the last three semesters. Although I can never claim to be an authority on the subject, many of the issues covered are of great interest to my academic inquiry and personal curiosity. Most importantly, having spent many hours reading classical works in psychology; books written by Freud, Jung, James, Skinner, Maslow, Rogers, and Frankl, during my undergraduate years, I realised how important it is to read the original works of these luminous figures to have a better grasp of their scholarly ideas and thoughts. Textbooks attempt to compress and summarise thus what we often get are simplistic views that do not do justice to the complexity and sheer enormity of the thoughts of these great thinkers.

Take Freud for example; a man whose colourful background is matched only by his colourful ideas. In an earlier posting, I gave my views on why Freud will always be an important component in any psychology syllabus. That had to be argued because Freud is by far the most vilified figure in critical psychology. It’s fine to argue against his ideas but I certainly find personal attacks against him (drug addict, sex-maniac etc) distasteful. And I’m very sure anyone who has read any of Freud’s original work, though may still disagree with his ideas thereafter, would at least appreciate his detailed and sophisticated arguments.

In teaching History and Philosophy of Psychology, I have asked my students to read the classical works in psychology and compare their impression and understanding upon reading these primary sources with what they have understood about the same issues from their readings of contemporary textbooks. I am happy to note that some of the reviews and analyses produced were quite impressive. Most notably are the more fair and mature analyses from the Islamic perspective. Rather than cliché statements that these ‘Western’ psychologists are secular, atheist, anti-religion etc without ever trying to understand what they meant in the first place, I was very happy to note that some students were able to express intellectual arguments and even concede that some of these ‘Western’ psychological ideas are in fact Islamic.

Islamization of knowledge as propounded by both Al-Attas and al-Faruqi was never about labelling knowledge as Islamic or un-Islamic. It is a meticulous process of understanding and mastering a particular field of study as prerequisite before any attempt to criticise and challenge it. One cannot criticise something that one does not understand. The great Muslim scholar Al-Ghazali was a strong critic of Greek philosophy and he was able to do that with credibility due to his undisputed knowledge of philosophy. That therefore is the standard that we should aspire to achieve.

Different Approaches of Islamization of Knowledge

(Below is an excerpt from my paper 'Islamization of Knowledge: Current Development and Future Trends' presented in a Seminar on Philosophy of Science in 2001)

To indulge on the issue of the origin and originator of the Islamization concept is to indulge into a meaningless argument which reaches to no end. It is meaningless because it does not serve any great significance. Sufficient to say, the idea, or in this case the movement, was given the limelight it deserves in 1982 with the publication of the book Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and Work Plan, written by Isma’il al Faruqi. This work provoked critical responses from scholars, both Western and Muslims, and has resulted in a series of conferences, research, books, and to a large extent the formation of the first international Islamic university in Malaysia.

Not everyone however, shared al Faruqi’s approach towards Islamization. Agreements varied and this ultimately resulted into several other approaches. Christopher Furlow, from the Department Anthropology, University of Florida, in his article ‘The Islamization of Knowledge: Philosophy, Legitimation, and Politics’, published in the journal Social Epistemology (Vol.10, 3, 1996) has categorized these different approaches into three major groups: modernization, indigenization and nativization. The following are summaries of each approach.

1. Modernization

The advocates of this modernist approach hold that "science is value free, neutral and objective." Any values that surround science are "primarily personal in nature and therefore do not effect the content of science." Knowledge is considered universal. What makes it different or in this case Islamic or un-Islamic is the application. Application in this case covers both intention and action. Two major figures in this approach are physicists Muhammad Abdus Salam and Jamal Mimoumi. Both view modern science as a Graeco-Islamic legacy and state that "natural sciences are as Islamic as nature could be." There is no need then to Islamize science and knowledge. Knowledge should be pursued no matter from where or whom the source is. Knowledge is Islamic or Islamized if and when it is used in the path of Allah and towards the betterment of mankind.

2. Indigenization

The indigenists’ goal is "the production of knowledge relevant to the specific problems of Islamic countries." While they argue that Western philosophy should not be adopted in its totality in an Islamic education system, they are none-the-less unwilling to discard the whole enterprise altogether. The goal then is an integration of Western sciences and Islamic revealed knowledge. For this to be achieved, the Muslim world will have to produce scholars who are endowed with both Western modern disciplines and Islamic revealed knowledge. This is the approach championed by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), and the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS). And among its major proponents are almarhum Isma'il al Faruqi, Sheikh Waqar Husaini and Sheikh Taha Jabir al-Alwani. How this integration is to be achieved is firmly outlined in the 12 steps of the Islamization of Knowledge Work Plan of al Faruqi.

3. Nativization

If the modernists argue science should be approached as it is, and for the indigenists, an integration of Western modern sciences and Islamic revealed knowledge and heritage, the nativists propose the creation of a completely new Islamic science. For them, Islamic science should not be an adaptation of the modernist model of science, rather it is a new and different science that must be built upon the foundations of Islamic epistemology. Two main models of this approach are the Ijmali’s model, led by Ziauddin Sardar, Parvez Manzoor and Munawar Anees, and the model of Seyyed Hoessein Nasr. The Ijmalis' ultimate aim is to apply universal Islamic concepts to contemporary situation "... and (to) address the issues of modern Islamic civilization from within its own worldview." For Hoessein Nasr, the goal of this new Islamic science is "the demonstration of the interrelatedness of all things." And to achieve this, knowledge should be pursued from a Tawhidic perspective whose pre requisites include total rejection of Western philosophy and science.

Al-Ghazali: Skepticism and Denial of All Knowledge

Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali was born in Tus, Persia in 450 H (1058 AD). During his lifetime, he acquired one of the most distinguished positions in the academic world as the Principal of the famed Nizamiyya Madrasah in Baghdad. He was appointed to the position at the age of 34 and was widely revered for his extensive knowledge and eloquent presentations.

At the age of forty, al-Ghazali encountered a crisis; internal in nature and spiritual in essence. He came to feel that the one thing that mattered was avoidance of hell and attainment of paradise. He perceived as if his present way of life was too worldly that he had lost any hope of achieving eternal reward. This severe internal struggle eventually prompted al-Ghazali to take the life of a wandering ascetic, roaming around various landmark destinations across the Muslim world.

One of the most important sources that explain vividly al-Ghazali’s struggle against his own thoughts is the book al-Munqidh min ad-Dalal or 'The Deliverance from Error'. This book outlines in detail al-Ghazali’s refutations on the validity and reliability of all knowledge.

Al-Ghazali contented that for knowledge to be certain, it must always remain free of doubts, illusion and possibilities of error. To him, “knowledge that is not infallible is not certain knowledge.” He evaluated the various branches of knowledge available during his time. From the analysis, al-Ghazali embraced the view that all knowledge are to be denied. His reasons are based on the following two issues: reliance on sense-perception, and reliance on intellectual truths. These two, representing the philosophy of empiricism and rationalism respectively, are the two major schools of thought in discussions on epistemology.

Since al-Ghazali had acclaimed that for knowledge to be certain, it has to be free from doubt, he launched a series of analysis to see whether he could make himself doubt either or both sense-perception and intellectual truths. The outcome extinguished whatever reliance he had on both.

To demonstrate the falsity of sense-perception, al-Ghazali used our sense of sight as an example. Al-Ghazali claimed that sight is the most powerful sense. But yet, when it looks at the shadow of a stick, it sees it standing still, and judges that the shadow has no movement. However, if one were to observe the situation after an hour, one would know that the shadow is moving. It moves gradually and steadily but infinitely in small distances in such a way that it is never in a state of rest. Therefore, what we had observed through our sense of sight is proven to be wrong, thus should not be relied upon.

In another demonstration, this time to falsify intellectual truths, al-Ghazali began asking some profound questions to himself pertaining to his previous reliance on intellectual truths. He finally came to the assumption that perhaps behind all intellectual comprehension, there is another judge who, if he manifests himself, will show the falsity of intellect in passing any judgments. Even if this meta-physical comprehension has not manifested, that does not prove it is impossible.

A clearer explanation can be obtained from al-Ghazali’s narration on the relationship between dreaming and wakefulness. One has to be asleep if one were to dream. Therefore, he is either in an unconscious or sub-conscious state. But yet, the images he had in his dreams are so vivid and graphic that everything seemed to be real. However, when the person wakes up, he immediately knows that everything he had imagined were false, therefore unreal. In other words, we know that our beliefs, once we are awake, automatically nullify whatever beliefs we had while we were dreaming. So, the question now is, wouldn’t it be possible that there could be another higher state, beyond consciousness that can nullify whatever beliefs we have in this conscious state, just as how our beliefs during wakefulness had nullify our beliefs in our dreams? To support his opinion, al-Ghazali quoted a hadith in which the Prophet SAW said, “the people are dreaming, (but) when they die, they become awake.”

The state beyond wakefulness that al-Ghazali proposed, is often referred to as what the Sufis claim as a special ‘state’, mystic union or ecstasy, which occur when they have withdrawn into themselves and are absent from their senses. In his writings, al-Ghazali often claimed that the Sufi path is the only way to seek knowledge. He denounced all other classes of knowledge seekers; the theologians, proponents of batiniyyah, and the philosophers. Al-Ghazali had labeled them as either anti-religious or ultra-religious, whose view on epistemology therefore cannot be accepted.

Al-Ghazali’s viewpoints on this issue are interesting amid somewhat controversial. His conclusion to accept only and only the Sufis as the true seeker of knowledge is even more intriguing once devoured upon entirely. Dare I ask, in our pursuit of knowledge today, have we indeed been on the right path?

(Note: This essay was originally written as a class assignment in November 1999. It was later adapted for publication in a student magazine. The article is reproduced here for the benefit of students of History & Philosophy of Psychology. Jazakumullahu khayr.)

Free Willed Transformation

Do we consciously direct our own actions, or is it controlled by other forces? That is the question debates on 'free will vs. determinism' try to answer; an important question in discussions on human nature, a fundamental feature in the philosophy of psychology.

Argument in favour of free will is most apparent in humanistic psychology. Unlike their predecessors – psychoanalysts and behaviourists – humanistic psychologists believe that man is in control of not only his own behavioural actions, but also in acquiring and developing new traits and beliefs. Thus, a person who has certain bad habits and maladaptive traits may consciously try to change them hence improving his behaviour and personal characteristics. An individual therefore, is not entirely at the mercy of his unconscious thoughts and desires. And neither is he powerless against the influence of his environment; social and cultural factors. He can change, regardless, and become a better person.

However, one has to be mindful of the other side of the free will equation. With free will, man indeed can change for the better but he can also change for the worse. In the past ten years, I have seen quite a few such transformations; from the mildest to the most drastic, from the most expected to the most unbelievable. I have seen how some of the most ardent and obsessive supporters of a certain Deputy Prime Minister became his strongest enemies and abusers in a matter of a few months after he was sacked from his position. I have seen how some people who used to praise and revere a certain Islamic philosophy professor from the ‘beacon on top of the hill’ began to condemn and insult his ideas and personality after he was forcibly removed from his founder-director position. And I have seen many young men and women of my generation who recorded among the highest decibel shouting reformasi and other idealistic slogans against the status quo, but upon joining the very institution they used to condemn, became passive and impotent. Alas! Some have even turned from anti-corruption activists to corruption propagators.

These spectacular transformations were all done out of free will. It is they who chose to change. It was not determined. Yes, in Islam we believe that Allah is all-Knowing hence, He knows what is to come of us in the future. That knowledge however is God’s alone. It doesn’t belong to us and should not be of our concern. Our responsibility is to utilise what God has endowed upon us; knowledge, intelligence and free will, and assume the responsibility of God’s vicegerents on earth, to enjoin good and forbid evil.

But unfortunately, when man is faced with moral ambiguities, he may lose his rationality and choose the path of ignominy.