And whoever holds fast to Allah, is indeed guided to the right path. (3:100)
The topic of my talk is the relationship between Islamic culture and ideology
and the field of human scinces. Such a topic, obviously, cannot adequately be
treated in one speech, and the questions which the members of the audience may
wish to ask cannot be satisfactorily answered. This is especially true as this
session is being held in commemoration of the anniversary of the Cultural
Revolution and something therefore must be said about that. Moreover, I am also
expected to explain the programme which has been suggested by the Qum
Theological School regarding its participation in restructuring the humanities
curricula in the nation's universities. Therefore, I would like to apologize in
advance for not being able to devote enough time to discussion of various issues
involved in my topic.
The topic of our discussion encompasses a number of concepts each of which are
susceptible to numerous definitions. This profusion of concepts and terms with
their varied and sometimes overlapping interpretations has caused a certain
degree of confusion about the subject in question. It is obviously impossible to
discuss and explain all of the various meanings of the numerous terms involved.
A brief explanation of the three most important terms which are involved in our
topic of discussion that is, ideology, culture, and the human sciences, is
however necessary.
Ideology: The word "ideology", which is much in use these days, and which
originally meant the study of ideas, has two prevalent usages today. Firstly,
ideology refers to any coherent system of thought about what man thinks and
believes. Such a system would include both the pictures that man has of the
external world as well as normative criteria prescribing what he must do. This
is the general usage of the term "ideology" which includes world‑view also. In
this usage of the term, belief in God is an ideological matter. Such beliefs as
the notion that there is a soul separate from the body, and that man is
resurrected after death to be rewarded and punished for his actions in this
life, are also ideological matters. Although such beliefs concern views about
matters pertaining to the external world and are not directly related to man's
deeds, none the less, they are considered to be ideological problems according
to the general usage of the term.
"Ideology" also has a specific usage which is used in contrast to "world‑view".
In this sense, "ideology" refers to a system of thought which is concerned with
the action of man. The function of such a system is to give man guidelines as to
what he should and should not do. According to this usage, questions such as
belief in God and resurrection are outside the realm of ideology, because they
are not directly related ‑to human action.
The two distinct usages of the word "ideology" give rise to a number of
questions regarding the relationship between two systems of thought: one
concerned with the nature of the external reality, and the other telling man how
to act in the world. These questions are too involved for us to be able to
discuss them here in a proper manner. One thing however must be said about this
issue. The thing that I would like to bring to your attention, is that there is
a relationship between the systems of thought and belief dealing with the nature
of the external reality and those which deal with the question of what man must
and must not do. In other words, not every world‑view is compatible with every
ideology. For example, Islamic ideology is based on the fundamental principle
that man's life must be aimed at attaining nearness to the Divine. Obviously
such an ideology can be acceptable only if one believes in the existence of God.
If someone (God forbid) should deny the existence of God, he could not,
possibly, accept an ideology which says: "All the works of man must be done with
the aim of pleasing God."
It is, hence, undeniable that there is a relationship between the two systems of
thought consisting of ideology and world‑view. To determine the nature of this
relationship, and to see if it is a "logical" one or of some other kind, it is
necessary that a number of fundamental problems regarding these matters be
discussed and explained in detail. Since there is no time for such an in‑depth
analysis on this occasion, we have to limit our discussion of ideology to what
we have just said.
Culture: Another word that needs explaining is the word "culture", since
it is one of the terms used in the title of my talk. The word "culture" is
defined in a number of ways by different dictionaries, and there has been much
discussion about its nature and qualities. Of the questions that may be raised
about the nature of culture, the most important are: What is meant by "culture"?
How does it come into existence? Under what conditions does it develop and under
what conditions does it decay? Is there a law that dictates that every culture
must have a period of. development and flowering followed by a process of decay
and degeneration? Or is it that such a law does not apply to culture? Is culture
a continuous process of development no longer susceptible to degeneration and
decay?
What I would like to say as a brief explanation of culture is that culture could
be thought of as the sum‑total of man's intellectual output. There is a real
relationship between culture and ideology, because the totality of man's
intellectual products obviously includes whatever systems he may design as
guidelines for his actions. In one sense, therefore, ideology is included in
culture. There is, however, another way of looking at this matter which leads us
to conclude that ideology and culture are separate from each other. In this
latter interpretation, "ideology" refers to beliefs and assumptions, while
culture refers to the working out and applications of these beliefs and
assumptions in the intellectual realm. In any case, in order that the
relationship of ideology and culture can be clearly comprehended, it is
necessary that we should be able to define each of them clearly so that the
point of demarcation between the two concepts is well understood.
Human Sciences: As for the human sciences, you brothers who are working
in the universities have a definition for this term according to which you
classify some of the fields of learning taught at the university as belonging
to the "human sciences group" as opposed to the experimental or the exact
sciences. You are also well aware of the origin of this term, the course of its
development, the branches of learning that it includes, and what distinguishes
it from other disciplines.
One may define human sciences as those fields of study which deal with man as a
rational, social and cultural being. Of course all sciences are related to man.
Here, however, the subject of study itself is man as a human being. To explain,
in biology the human body may be the object of research, but the subject of this
study is man's animal life. Thus we can say that all those branches of learning,
the subjects of which are not related to human socio‑cultural activity (that is,
they would exist irrespective of whether man exists as a rational and
socio‑cultural being, or not) are said to belong to fields other than the human
sciences; whereas, those studies the subject of which is connected with man's
intellectual and socio‑cultural activity could be said to belong to the field,
of human sciences.
What we have been doing is defining a term. Now as to whether this definition
fully describes the matter being discussed is entirely another question. It
should be kept in mind, that definitions can be extended and restricted to
include or exclude various things. I should add that according to the definition
we have given of the human sciences, not all the fields of learning within its
fold relate to Islam. Only those branches of learning within the human sciences
could be said to concern Islam that deal with concepts which are found in the
text of the revelations or in their exegeses.
Here we are also confronted with a fundamental problem whose solution would
require extensive and time‑consuming analysis. The question is this: what sort
of concepts are religious concepts? Are they in the same category as scientific
concepts? Or do they belong to the category of philosophical concepts? Or is it
that they belong to a third group of concepts? In other words, we want to know
whether religious conceptions are in a special category of their own, or that
they are shared by science and philosophy also? Is it possible for a problem to
arise in science and religion together? Is it possible for philosophy and
religion to share problems between them? These are the questions that we are
faced with.
Suppose that there are actually problems that are found both in the realm of
philosophy and the domain of religion; what characteristics would make it a
problem of philosophy or a problem of religion? Perhaps we can answer that if a
problem is solved solely through the exercise of reason, and conviction in that
solution is also based upon logical‑reasoning and analysis, then that problem is
a philosophical one. If on the contrary, a problem is solved solely on the basis
of the Revelation, and conviction in such a solution is also based upon the
Revelation, then we could say that such a problem is a religious problem. Such
an answer, however, is inadequate, and does not solve all the problems involved.
For example, we have rational inference used in the Quran to prove the oneness
of God. Also logic is used to prove that there is a day of resurrection. What
are we to conclude, then, about such problems? Are they philosophical, or
religious issues? We read in the Quran:
If there had been in them (heavens and earth) any gods except Allah, they would
both have certainly been in a state of disorder. (21:22)
The kind of reasoning used in this verse is termed "exceptional syllogism."
Those who are familiar with logic know that the exception in this syllogism is
"suppressed". This is similar to many other syllogisms in which one of the two
premises is suppressed. In logic we have a topic which deals with "suppressed
argument," in which one of the premises of the syllogism is stated while the
other one is left unsaid because it is assumed to be obvious. Sometimes the
exception of an exceptional syllogism is not stated because of its obviousness.
The purport of the Quranic verse just quoted is that if there were any other god
ruling over the heavens and the earth beside the One God, the heavens and the
earth would have been corrupted and thrown into chaos. But we see that they have
not fallen into chaos. The conclusion is that there is only one almighty God.
Now, one may ask: Is the matter raised here a philosophical or a religious one?
It is also said in the Quran:
Shall We treat those who believe and do good like the mischief‑makers in the
earth? Or shall We make those who guard (against evil) like the wicked? (38:28)
This is the reasoning which the Quran uses to prove that there must be a day in
which everyone must reap what he has sown; the good shall be rewarded and the
bad shall be punished.
Now what are we to think of such a problem, when it is backed by such reasoning?
Is it a religious or a philosophical problem? In order to answer this question
it is necessary to first explain what is religion. Does religion consist of a
series of laws which have been given to us by the Almighty, be they related to
individual or social affairs? Does religion consist of beliefs, morals and
commands in their totality? If we accept the notion that belief is a part of
religion, then, the question arises as to whether belief as such is to be
considered as a part of religion, or the reason, or reasons, for professing
those beliefs should also be considered as belonging to religion.
The conclusion that can be drawn from the aforementioned discussion is that if
religion is taken to mean all the things that we are given in the Quran and the
sunnah (tradition), then, we must conclude that there are some issues that are
commonly shared by religion and philosophy. At the same time, each of these
realms of human thought and experience includes areas outside the jurisdiction
of the other. In religion, a number of problems are raised and dealt with that
are not discussed or proved in philosophy. For example, the laws of Islamic
jurisprudence, or obligatory practices such as the five daily prayers and
fasting are not related to philosophy. On the other hand, there are problems and
issues in the realm of philosophical speculation that have nothing to do with
religion. For example, the question whether objects are made up of matter and
form, is a philosopical problem which has no connection with religion. There
are, however, some problems which are of importance both in philosophy and
religion (e.g. questions regarding the existence of God, Resurrection, etc.).
In any case, such problems as these require an extensive discussion for which
this is not the proper time and place. In fact a whole book must be devoted to
such a discussion.
The subject of our discussion is the question of the relationship between
Islamic culture, ideology, and the human sciences. We may define human sciences
as those branches of learning that deal with man's beliefs and the meaning and
reality of his existence. These fields of investigation are centered around the
question of the nature of the human being, the possibility of human perfection,
and the path which man must follow in order to attain this perfection. All
matters, therefore, that are classified as belonging to the field of human
sciences but do not fit the definition that I have just given, are outside the
scope of our present discussion. For, though such matters are defined as
branches of the human sciences, they have no connection with religion.
For example, applied statistics is one of the branches of the human sciences.
This science has nothing to do with religion for, nowhere in the Quran or the
sunnah there is any discussion of statistical matters. Of course, it is possible
to argue about the applicability or the reliability of the theory of
probability to the solving of various problems. We can ask as to what degree can
the truth of hypotheses be proved or disproved by the statistical method.
The next question to consider is whether Islamic culture and ideology should
intervene in the human sciences or not? And if the answer to this question is in
affirmative, then what form such an interference should take? Should it be done
in a revolutionary manner, or in a reformative fashion? Or, should it take a
form which is neither revolutionary nor reformative?
If we consider human sciences to include, on the one hand, subjects such as
theology, spirituality, resurrection, revelation, prophethood, and on the other
hand, to be concerned with topics like law, economy and other such things, then
we must say that it is not possible for Islamic culture and ideology to be
divorced from the human sciences and not to have anything to do with them.
When Islam is a religion that has laws dealing with various economic issues, how
can it be indifferent to economic systems? When Islam is a religion that assigns
rights and duties to citizens, governments, societies, individuals and so on,
then how can we say that Islam has no connection with the human sciences? If
there is no relation involved here, then what does the word "relation" mean?
In short, anyone who has the slightest familiarity with the Islamic sciences
knows that some of the branches of the human sciences are deeply connected‑one
may even say united‑with that aspect of Islam which is concerned with codes of
practice.
The connection of Islam with the human sciences is not limited to what we have
just described. As I have mentioned earlier, there are a number of Islamic
beliefs that are issues of concern in various sciences and in the field of
philosophy. For example, in Islam, one must believe in resurrection and the
return of the soul to the body. This is closely related with philosophy. Many of
the things that we believe in Islam, whether they be fundamental principles such
as belief in the existence of God, or secondary matters such as belief in the
existence of the hell, or Divine justice, are things that we are taught by Islam
and are required to believe in, if we are to be Muslims. Is it possible for us
to say that these things have no connection with either science or philosophy?
We know that there are numerous issues in religion that include problems that
are specifically mentioned in books on philosophy. One example is the Islamic
belief in the unity and oneness of God. It is obvious, therefore, that
philosophy and religion are closely connected and that some of their problems
are in fact identical.
The most important connection between religion and the human sciences involves
ethical questions, especially those that concern the origins and foundations of
ethics.
The aim of religion is to guide man towards perfection. Its goal is to actualize
what is a potentiality in man. Man is to make himself perfect through the way he
thinks, feels, acts and lives. Furthermore, only what man does consciously may
contribute to his spiritual growth and development and his movement towards
perfection. It is therefore necessary for man to possess guidelines so that he
knows what he must and must not do in order to edify his soul. It is the
function of religion to provide man with a set of general rules and ethical
principles. All this is, of course, closely connected with education, rules of
social and individual conduct and other such matters. It is not possible,
therefore, for the science of ethics to be a stranger to religion. When the aim
of religion is to teach man the method of spiritual growth, development and
perfection, would it be possible for it to remain indifferent to ethical
questions? Inevitably it must affirm certain ethical stands and oppose others.
We must conclude, therefore, that the human sciences have, in the most part, a
close and direct relationship with religion, and that we can not draw a line of
separation between them and religion.
Be first to comment this article
Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
Comments posted are the sole opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of AIM.
