To Philosophize or not? — The need for an “Islamic Perspective”
By: Penkelemesi'S Catharsis
Tags: Pedagogy, Theology, Philosophy, Islam, Philosophy Of Science

This is a reply to a facebook comment dated 04/23/2020

Post: “Tauhid combined with Science and Philosophy increased my Faith”.

Comment:

So I don’t know the bias of the author of the post and I don’t want to play into the stereotype(any flanked position.

I’ll be speaking from experience(as an “on the go” student 7 years now). In fact, that is what I am still engaging in as I type this right now(within a Muslim religious circle).

Philosophy and Science for me are the same thing except that the former is heavily abstract and can yield to nothing and more evil without praxis(Practical/beneficial endeavor). Science on the other hand as we know it is something that engages with the empirical reality of the world through demonstrations and arriving at a conclusion.

Can you Have a Science without a desire(d goal in mind)? Without a bias? Without a starting point? Without a *Philosophy*? ABSOLUTELY not.

As someone familiar with the rudiments of physical science(Na’am from SS1 to Year 5 of university) plus “Social science” as degree plus Islamic sciences in the journey, you can be rest assured that anyone who teaches you without an ideological bias to it or with a *grounding* is teaching you air. We all need a *reference frame* even if we need to undo it and fix or rebuild later..

That’s what a Philosophy 101 class is supposed to do. Give you the frame…. If it is thought properly without an inherent bias, Your tauhid will be fixed with it and better articulation.

Infact Scholarly aqeedah class that makes up the branch of “Theology”(not “aqeedah” as we know it today) is a combination of Aqeedah AND Philosophizing. Ibn Taymiyyah is nothing but a Philosopher to me. Period. he just did it under the banner of Tauhid. Hence he is a Theologian. The same goes for al-Ghazali, whose only mistake was to assume that his adoption of a paradigm was 100% still useful in its utility besides the use of language. Without seeing the mistakes of predecessors, you don’t get to know(appreciate distinguishing) evil from good. That’s what makes Ibn Taymiyyah good because he focused on historicity to solidify his theological arguments and rubbish the epistemic value given to utilizing a certain paradigm to discuss issues of serious matters to lay people’s life i.e. Religion and Fiqh. Case in point: He still spent 5 years studying the technicalities of that field before deploying it. He could have chosen to do what the other hanabilah(The Hanbali School and their Theological position) before him did by avoiding it altogether. He went to their home and won them(ironically the Hanabilah jubilated after reading his first refutation).

The summary is

1. It’s not for everybody. And if it isn’t helping you solidify your aqeedah, it should be dumped. The aqeedah of a grandmother will forever be as strong as yours unless the knowledge helps better you.

2. Philosophy is supposed to be an understanding of the abstract in the absence of revelation OR where known knowledge is not clear cut enough. Theology on the other hand(as done by Aquinas(after alghazali and co) is understanding the purpose of God in your life and his ahkam(laws) etc — pretty much tauhid(as opposed to focusing on him and the nature of his attributes which by and large Aqeedah discourse(as we now know it) became about). Hence the body of philosophy is not a monolith. Ibn Taymiyyah and hanabilah were against the “Aristetolian Philosphy” or “Greek Philosophy”. So far this, is what the work of Shaykh Abubakar Birnin Kudu( so far the most brilliant historical evaluation of the history of Mutakallimin influences in English I have seen east to west by a scholar) tried to focus on, of course while taking the position of “Philosophy is Bad”.

3. There is a category of philosophy that I have seen unparalleled ever since reading it. If you read their work, you would think it is a Seerah work combined with Tazkiyatunafs but Bad news.. they existed WAY before the Prophet. They are called “Stoics”.

I have reviewed Ryan Holiday’s Ego is the Enemy and “Obstacles is the way” on a Muslim Whatsapp group. The entire work is based on stoics philosophy that existed in Greece 200 years before Isa or Muhammad(S.A.W.).

A response of “But we have a seerah so no need” will come. My Rebuttal:

A. A Hadith of the prophet (SAW) says “Wisdom is the Lost property of the believer, wherever he sees it, he is entitled to it”. This alone suffices and this alone is what makes us binding to accept western innovations in tech even when they keep screwing us over for a few more decades unfortunately but God willingly(just a few. Tell that to Boko Haram).

B. Secondly, it’s one thing to have a text to follow, it’s a different thing for human experiences to relate or narrate it. The further the generations, the need for people to feel like “History is just a thing of the past”. You must relate it to them how to walk those paths and difficulties as well as train their intellects for unknown times. This is what “Beneficial philosophy”. Until the works of Ibn Qayyim and Ibn Jawzi(who also were clear cut massive beneficiaries of the greeks, their critiques are evident) become a massive staple in our homes, these watered-down philosophies under guidance, of course, would be a relevant staple especially if they have little to nothing to do with Aqeedah but Theology as a whole(Purpose: How Allah wants us to experience life through hos attributes of course).

You can ignore most of what I wrote above and face this(focus):

Just as Philosophy is not All “BAD”, Science is not “ALL GOOD”. We must consequently deal with black and white portrayals of these courses as we get muddy in sorting out other components that our faith bias forces us to challenge them with i.e Laws and Ethics shaping them.

As I have said, if Philosophy is a mind that needs to act, Science is the Body. As simple as that, you cant have a car without a driver. So contemporary “Science is MOSTLY and almost entirely driven by “Modern philosophy” and “Naturalism” or Naturalist science. That is what you have in the work of Dawkins, which is not science, it is purely ideological… or an ideology for a start.

To back that up, there is something called the “Philosophy of science” which should be taught in SS1 in every third world country. A lack of it is why we are in this mess. So don’t be surprised if a Ph.D intellectual spits conspiracy theory because his “Usul in science” was almost nonexistent except to Pass WAEC….. AND GET A GOVERNMENT JOB!!!! PERIOD. A lack of such will continue to hurt the Muslim world because the ‘USUL’(I’ll interpret it as “grounding Philosophy” as opposed to “fundamentals” here) of the succeeding generations had an “Allah Component” of their Theology embedded BEHIND the science and their inventions — That’s a *Philosophy*! So whereas, Dawkins and Darwin are about “Naturalism”(google the words “Determinism”) and doing science for the fun of it without the Abrahamic Aqeedah component, the motivation behind the discovery of Algebra in contrast, was rather to figure our Fiqh of Miraath(Inheritance). So an entire generation(ours) was saved because we went to school for the hell of it while our religion was intact. That is why Innovation is still taken less seriously and thus ASUU. The next will be going abroad to learn *purposeful* science but with an Atheist framework that further delineates God and secularizes science from religion. Both of which have philosophies undergirding them to make progress. Their reason(for such) in the west is rational. The Catholic church couldn’t reconcile Science with religion which led to the wars of Europe, the separation of Aql from the heart(Aristotelian philosophy), their modern philosophy(motivated by Capitalism, liberalism, and Individualism) and the welcome package of New Atheism that drives progress aka “There is no God, the world is free for all. Make atomic bombs, test them, and come back later for Morality talks”. We don’t have such historic baggage in the east for 1000 years.

The bottom line, Science that is still taught in school has a bias which is western because it doesn’t begin with “Bismillah”(and I mean more than just literally) in every chemistry, physics or biology class. There is no validation(Ontology — A philosophical word) of God’s existence behind their understanding of Quantum Physics even though Isacc Newton was a believer and so Newtonian physics was “a bit safe”. The same goes for the Evolution theory(taught in colleges) on steroids without a proper understanding of tools of inquiry, epistemic tools of validation, and the role of revelation as a “source of knowledge”(Epistemology) to accompany scientific theories. In other words, is there a subconscious frame behind the mind that there is a beginning and sure an end which indicates that “*of course there is a God”*. Such a component is nonexistent in our western model of teaching science across institutions. Not even the idea of “intelligent design” is ministered by these renowned atheist scientists(e.g. Neil Degrassi) that have acknowledged such on youtube.

Hence somewhere in the universe, don’t be surprised if someone — a scholar — is using the Hadith of “Laa Adwa”(no Contagion) to promote 5G theories and quoting Imam Tahawi and wrongly Ibn Qayyim to validate his assertions. This is the failed role untouched in our Pedagogical system — both Islamic and “Secular/western”(a nonsensical term from a believer’s point of view. Our Philosophy begins with Adam’s knowledge from God(surah baqarah)) Studies. This is where a contemporary course to fill the void of philosophy( IET Minna teaches it as “Islamic Perspective” in their curriculum at the very least) should be embedded in every seminary, to begin with. A PHILOSOPHY OF….. a. Science, b. History(from a quranic point — Ovamir Anjum teaches this at Bayanonline), c. social sciences is a must need for seminaries and tomorrows scholars. Otherwise, retarded conspiracy theories will be peddled as defense mechanisms to checkmate Atheism, Humanism, Secularism Feminism(The Ideology), Scientism that merely teaching Qawaai’id or Usul thalatha (without a *competent scholar of theology*) cannot do/undo. Ibn Taymiyyah would have seen that as Darurah of his time(Rephrehensible Bidi’a in another Usul(Teleological(utility) paradigm) to study Aristotle’s logic. Now Aristetolian Logic is dead, modern Philosophy(with one-sided Natural logic ironically) is the order of the day.

In other words, more knowledge of the past(with a bias for something else(e.g. the Sunnah?)), not for *leisure* as many philosophy lovers and students do and hence their misguidance for the most) is an ultimate driver of the future we’ll be pushing wheelbarrows through. My misguidance(if any in the future) — May God Protect me from it — should rather be attributed in the future to 1. Complacency, 2. Arrogance in my studies as opposed to the field of knowledge in of itself. Y’all haven’t heard of the Sudani Shaykh “Jaafar Idris” yet? He has a Ph.D in Philosophy without a thesis. That’s how bad having a strong Athari Aqeedah can take you through without Taqlid of opinions parroted in books(“he say she say”). Google his works in both English and Arabic.

These are my two cents. Sorry, this wasn’t supposed to be more than 8 lines. Lol

Next Ramadan Topic: “Cosmology and Theology of Gender” — Na wetin dem assign for me be that.

Jazakallahu Khayran Senior IIbrahiym A. El-Caleel Thank you for tagging me to this.

If any specific resource is needed(topic wise), I can do more or otherwise consult chairman Abdurrahman Islam on this.

ccNasir Bello Abdulbasit Kassim Yax Mokwa Ibrahim Waziri Jr.

(Any Place for necessary edits and typos should be clarified. Might Just make it a bloggable posts. Am sure Marzuq Abubakar Ungogo and Ibrahim Wazir have written something much better somewhere is. You can share assist with the links iA.)