Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
From Our Readers

In her letter Heaven, hell a psychological relief , Dr Rafidah H Mokhtar chastised me for analysing knowledge into two, definite and indefinite, as well as to define dogma purely on my own understanding of them. This division is in fact quite universal and I am obliged to mention my sources from which I learned this wisdom.

My first source of authority is the Encyclopaedia of Seerah Vol III when on page six, it states and I quote, "According to Ali, 'Knowledge is of two kinds: natural and acquired'". Ali is the last of the four rashiduns or Companions of Prophet Muhammad in Islamic philosophy. As some Muslim philosophers would equate a Companion's wisdom as a virtual Hadith, this authority is beyond question.

A more recent philosopher, Bertrand Russell, divides knowledge into two, definite knowledge and dogma, in his book History of Western Philosophy . Russell has stated that 'All definite knowledge belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology'. Russell is an avowed atheist, ie, poles apart from the eminently theological Ali. Their somehow common agreement to this division bears ample testimony to its universal feature.

Rafidah has either consciously or unconsciously subscribed to this analysis as well, for she seems to have used this similar division. To wit, she says that "knowledge is learned as al-ilm al-aqli (knowledge acquired through human reason and intellect) and al-ilm al-naqli (transmitted knowledge through Quran and Sunnah)." A little reflection on her part will reveal that broadly speaking there is not much conceptual difference between (i) al-ilm al-naqli , (ii) natural knowledge of Ali, and (iii) my 'indefinite knowledge' and dogma of Russell. They would fall neatly too under a common term 'theology'.

On the same token there is no difference between acquired knowledge, definite knowledge and al-ilm al-aqli , and under the term 'science'. (Before this discourse gets derailed by many potentially confusing semantics and technical jargon, and for the sake of simplicity, I have to henceforth use these two familiar terms theology and science).

Philosophy

For the record the dividing line between theology and science is called intuition in Islamic philosophy while Russell calls this borderline as 'philosophy'. Rafidah has an equivalent term for this too when she uses the word 'purpose' (actually she used 'purposiveness') in her presentation. Philosophy explains theological tenets to an increasingly doubting, critical and rational world, inasmuch as it explains many of the events and happenings not yet fully explained by science.

I should stop here as I have hopefully serves adequately albeit briefly answer to Rafidah's aspersions. But the worthy doctor has mentioned that should there arise conflict between theology and science, then theology wins; on no occasion will science ever superseding theology. She added further that at any rate there is precious little occasion where this conflict ever happens, and quoted Darwinism theory being the one she has ever come across. I have to continue with my present discourse as I could not agree with her postulations.

Thinking and behaviour

I contend that theology and science are very different in both concept and application and am obliged to defend my stance. I shall do so by way of explaining (i) the link between thinking and behaviour, (ii) the features and characteristics of theological thinking and scientific thinking, and (iii) the meaning of theory.

Psychologists have made the observation that thinking influences behaviour and vice-versa, behaviour influences thinking. How a person thinks will shape how he behaves. This wisdom of psychology therefore says that when a person thinks under the influence of theology then his pattern of behaviour is bound to be theological. A Malay person thinks about God all the time so he prays five times a day, for example.

Theological thinking

Theological thinking is based on a fixed and rigid mental frame, where everything is governed by some centrally formulated form of law or rules and procedures. This had prompted me to say that Islamic thinking is limited in its scope and vista, the mind can roam only within a specified parameter. I remember Jakim stating over the radio to this effect: 'Islam can discuss anything except the singularity of God and that Mohammad is His Prophet'.

To me this injunction leads to a behaviour pattern characterised by conformity, conservatism, the protection of the status quo, socialisation into Islam, and a great preoccupation with the Hereafter. I would add as a body of knowledge, theology is limited and static - it does not increase (nor change) with time. Just listen to the very many radio and television programmes on religion in Malaysia. The programme presenters will be occupied with finding out what are the features and rules and regulations governing Ramadan fasting for example, which is more or less the same presentation with one made in the previous year and indeed the years before. I am most willing to put my last bottom ringgit that the future programmes next year will have the same content.

It is a repetitive reminder of a spiritual decree, rigid, and even coercive. Its reservoir of knowledge stays put through time at a fixed and low-level plateau. This is because 'everything has been laid out in Islam', as most Islamic gurus would put it, so no radical change or advancements are ever expected there. I have to add that a theological mind does not preclude it from applying and even believing in the products of scientific thinking, like an imam enjoying a trip to Mekkah on a Boeing 747. Muslim rationalisation for this situation is that Islam is not against science, against knowledge.

This is begging the issue. It just does not say that Islamic thinking is not conducive towards the creation of new knowledge or science. Indeed, theological thinking has very little contribution to make to the invention of the aeroplane for example. A theological mind contributes preciously little to cutting-edge scientific curiosity, originality, creativity and analysis.

Scientific thinking

Scientific thinking is different altogether. To begin with nothing is taken as the truth, least of all the existence of God Almighty. Anything and everything is open for criticism and discussion. Every 'truth' handed down from father to son is subject to scrutiny before it is accepted as fact, including religion. It relates more to the reality of the world we live in today. Science is understanding nature. Science (i.e. scientific knowledge) grows and grows. What is taught in an economics lecture halls at university today will be taught at a secondary school classroom 10 years later, for example.

Or, what is being actively researched today, like stem cell technology, will become common knowledge and application tomorrow. Similarly there are rapid advancements in computer technology and robotics. Science has a different temper of mind. Whatever is presented today, like the Darwinian Theory, is the result of a long series of observation and experimentation that knowledgeable experts accept as fact. Science is intellectual in nature, and it prevails solely by its intrinsic appeal to human reason. It is flexible, pragmatic and in conformity with reality.

Theory

A theory is an explanation, statement that fits the evidence. Scientists (that means anybody who thinks scientifically) accept the explanation confidently but provisionally, taking it as their best available view of reality. They are willing to change their views when new evidence comes along which contradicts present understanding. A pertinent point about a scientific theory, indeed about any scientific fact, is that the human mind is not coerced to accept it. A person can feel free not to accept a theory like what Rafidah has done to cast aside the Darwinian theory (of evolution) as 'just another theory'. Her understanding of human creation has gone in direct contradiction to her theological understanding of it.

But there are very many scientific facts that are still understood in theory, like the continental drift that caused the tsunami in December of last year. If she was happy this was part of God's qada' and qadar , God's will in determining the fate of humans, then so be it. To me it merely shows the strength of the grip of theological thinking on her part. It also indicates in a small way of how the conservative and conformist theological mind is not too ready to absorb new ideas. On a broader scale it indicates why Muslim contribution in significant advances in human knowledge is pitifully little.

Why is that Muslim scientists are scant in the forefront of scientific research? My answer is simple. It is because scientific research is the 'product' of a scientific mind. A Muslim mind is more theological, so more often than not, it is not conducive or even equipped to create a scientific product, one that is in conflict with its logical platform

Contradiction and conflict

This leaves me to rebut Rafidah's claim that theology and science do not contradict one another; but in the event should this ever occur, she says that theology will win hands down. She could recollect only the Darwinian Theory as one such occasion, and even on this one occasion, she rationalises it as 'not a vital necessity of any human to subscribe to'. I cannot agree to this, for the world indeed is full of theology-science contradictions. Like I have mentioned above, the intellectual and logical premise of theology and science are different, so in the real world contradictions between them is more the order of the day. It all depends on whether or not a person is willing to see them.

For this wisdom, I recollect another item of psychology - that a person will see only what he wants to see, hear only what he wants to hear. His theological or scientific thinking norm will give him the perspective, his perception of 'truth'. Rafidah might not wish to 'see' some contradictions, so she rationalises them. Here are some additional contradictions and conflicts between theology and science, my off-the-cuff compilation:

  • Theology says that the human race started from Adam, but science says that man evolved gradually from apes.

  • Theology says that knowledge originates from God's revelation but science says that knowledge is the result of human experience, and the induction and deduction mental processes. Closer to home;
  • The Malaysian Constitution says that Malaysians enjoy all of the tenets of the Declaration on Human Rights, but the Syariah Law hunts for Ayah Pin, makes life miserable for Lina Joy, and also makes approximately 15,000 Malays closet Christians.
  • While the Quran says that there is no miracle for Muhammad, the bookstores in town sell books with the conflicting titles of 35 Miracles of Muhammad and 50 Miracles of Muhammad . In this last case, the miracles of Muhammad has been declared by God at zero in the Quran, to 35 by one author to 50 by another. I bought the book in disbelief and curiosity, and got resigned to the fact that in theological thinking nothing can really be quantitatively confirmed.
  • Do spare me the need to list other contradictions between theology and science for this can be endless. In the meantime though, the reservoir of scientific knowledge or knowledge as a result of human experimentation, induction and deduction is growing and definitely not static. Indeed, modern philosophers say that this reservoir of knowledge actually doubles every 8-10 years. My interpretation to this important fact is that in this modern world that we live in, theological thinking and theological behaviour is losing ground to scientific thinking and rational behaviour.

    I shall end this discourse by asking Rafidah to ponder over this following statement: In the human search for truth and its march to the future, theology is losing ground to science. Think about it.

    ADS