Now we face the question of how to introduce Islamic culture and ideology
into the human sciences. Actually, taking note of what I have already said, such
a question seems irrelevant. If we believe that our religion is the truth, then
we must believe in all that it teaches from the major principles to minor
details. It also follows that Islam is relevant to everything that has to do
with man. We believe that whatever is written in the Holy Book is the truth and
no falsehood could have possibly entered it. We also believe in the
truthfulness of the sunnah. On the question of its own reliability the Quran
says:
Falsehood shall not approach it from before it nor from behind it: [it is] a
revelation from the Wise, the Praised One. (41:42)
Then, how can we accept some of the views, expressed in certain fields of
learning, which contradict with the Quran or the hadith? This is not a simple
question and requires considerable discussion for the answer to be clear. To put
it in a nutshell, if the opinion expressed in a particular field of study really
represents the truth, it could never contradict the teachings of the religion
of Truth, which is nothing other than Divine Revelation. True religion is given
to us by God. The Creator of this universe is also God. The Creator and the
Lawgiver being identical, how is it possible that the same being that has made
us and the universe should give us misleading laws and guidelines?
It goes without mentioning that such a notion would (God forbid) contradict and
negate the Holy Quran and the Traditions. Whenever we run into theories in any
of the fields of science which appear to contradict any of the teachings of
Islam (and by Islam we mean any of the teachings of the True Doctrine), we must
closely examine the nature of contradiction by evaluating the religious concept
and scrutinizing the theories and ideas forwarded by the related science. As you
are probably aware, almost ninety‑nine percent of what is presented today as
"scientific" material has never been conclusively proven to be true.
Most of these so‑called "scientific" theories are nothing but imaginative
conjectures based on probabilities that are abandoned after a short period of
time. How can we give equal validity to something that is ninety‑nine percent
conjecture and is based on probabilities and to something which we know with
hundred percent certainty to be from God and to be the Truth?
If by "science" we mean the sort of conjectures and guesses that are presented
in some books in the name of science, and are opposed to some of the things that
are clearly and incontrovertibly established in the Divine teachings, what we
have here is simply a question of guess and conjecture as opposed to conviction
and certitude. If, on the other hand, by "science" we mean those principles and
laws which correspond to reality, irrespective of whether they are discovered
by the mind through logic and reasoning or discovered through research and
experiment, such things could never be in opposition to the content of Divine
Revelation. It is thus clear that the notion that science and true religious
teachings can contradict each other is a false one and corresponds to nothing in
the external reality.
To sum up what we have been saying, if a man truly believes in the teachings of
the True Religion, he must bring these teachings and beliefs to bear on the
content of those fields of the human sciences that have any relationship to the
questions and issues dealt with in the True Doctrine. Otherwise, he would be
forced to believe both in the principles and instructions of religion as well
as in the theories of a field of learning that may contradict those teachings
and principles.
Now, how should the influence of the culture and ideology of Islam be exercised
upon the human sciences? Should it be done in a revolutionary manner or in the
way of a reform, or in a way different from either of these two? If the question
facing us is how to apply Islamic culture and ideology to the existing social
sciences, the answer is clear.
Let me ask another question. Why did we revolt? Why did our Islamic nation
revolt? Some people say that the revolution was motivated by political and
economic issues. Our experience has proved, however, that although such motives
may have prevailed among some groups in our society, they played a subordinate
role in the overall movement of our people.
Who are the people that are volunteering for martyrdom on the battlefields? Are
they any other than members of the revolutionary masses of our country? Is it
not true that these martyrs have left behind them messages that say: `We have
sacrificed our lives in order to defend the Quran, to revive Islam, and to
establish the rule of the True Religion upon this planet.'
If any one were to make a disinterested study of our revolutionary society, he
will undoubtedly conclude that the dominant motivating factor in our society is
Islam. This nation revolted so that the teaching: of the Quran could be put into
practice, so that Allah should reign over our lives. Such nation cannot remain
indifferent to the culture of Islam and the culture dominant in the society.
That is why the Islamic culture existed in the very core of the Islamic
Revolution from its inception. Is Islam anything other than an ideology and a
world‑view? When we have a school of thought that is based on a particular
ideology and worldview, it is vital to its existence that its world-view is
infused into the nation and its ideology is put into practice in all its
dimensions. This is so because these are the pre‑conditions of its continued
existence and vitality.
We said earlier that culture, also includes ideology. Since our culture is
directly related to our ideology, the Islamic Revolution cannot remain
indifferent towards either of them. It is essential that all those aspects of
the human sciences which are compatible with our culture and religion should be
affirmed, and anything that is opposed to our Islamic culture, world‑view and
ideology must be eliminated.
There is a point that has to be made clear at this juncture. In our research
centers all opposing views must be presented and debated. When we say that
Eastern and Western cultures must be eliminated from our society, this does not
mean that the views of this or that Western or Eastern scholar should never be
presented in the universities. This is not the case. The issue is that our
universities should be so well grounded in Islamic culture and ideology that
they should have the capacity to face and repudiate any views opposed to Islam,
through rational, reasoned, arguments. We believe in the righteousness of Islam.
We believe that this religion of Truth is able to answer any opposing arguments
and shall not be found wanting in any intellectual debate regarding any of its
principles.
By Islamization of our culture, we mean that our universities and our centers of
scholarly research should function in a way that they develop the ability in
scholars and thinkers to prove the truth of the teachings of Islam and
demonstrate the fallacy of the arguments of those challenging the Path of
Righteousness. The educational process should be so structured that by the time
a student finishes his studies, he is capable of defending his Islamic beliefs,
and not so that from the start of his education non-Islamic ideas should be so
incorporated in his syllabus so that he is incapable of defending his ideology
and beliefs. This does not mean, however, that non‑Islamic ideas should not be
presented in the universities.
In every field of learning, when we prove a certain view, we, at the same time,
disprove the view that opposes it. However, intellectual enquiry requires that
the conflicting views be presented, considered, and then rejected, so that we
might attain a higher level of intellectual certitude. In other words, this is
the process by which the correctness of our position, and the fallacy of the
opposing view, are definitely established. Opposing views, therefore, must
certainly be presented. It should not be the case, however, that opposing views
are fed to the students from the very beginning, and that also as if they were
scientific and irrefutable facts, and the minds of the students be so filled
with these non‑Islamic ideas that it later becomes a very difficult task to get
rid of them and to show the students what is really true and what is specious.
What I have just described was precisely the method of brainwashing that was
practised in our universities at the time of the taghuti regime of the Shah. The
aim of the educational system of the time was to eradicate and uproot any
Islamic ideas or beliefs from the minds of the students at all costs. Whenever a
topic related to religious matters was discussed in a class, the professor would
either ridicule it and treat it as a joke or speak of it in such a tone as to
indicate that it was not a matter to be taken seriously. Even when the content
of a book was not anti‑religious, the tone of voice that the professor chose in
discussing it produced a negative impression in the mind of his students. This
is a matter which is well‑known to scholars working in the field of educational
psychology. But we clearly saw the effect it had on the students. When a student
came out of such classes his beliefs had been shaken. When these professors
wanted to give a funny illustration on a topic, they always used a cleric as a
subject.
The problem was compounded by the tendency to present views which were in fact
hypotheses and theories as proven, irrefutable and unchanging laws. They would
say: "These are absolute truths. Past are the days when any views contrary to
them were taken seriously. Science has now proved the validity of these
positions irrefutably." You have yourself seen that in the past ninety‑nine
percent of our university graduates implicitly believed all the things which
they read in their textbooks. This was specially true of the various fields of
the "experimental" sciences. They believed that all views expressed in these
books were unchallengeable, eternal and confirmed facts. This method of
educating and training young minds is absolutely wrong and must change.
Another matter which I must discuss, although in brief, is the programme which
has been suggested by the Qum Theological School regarding restructuring of the
human sciences curricula in our universities. In few sentences I would like to
explain what I believe to be the essential aspects of this plan. The fundamental
belief, upon which this plan is based, is that the teaching of the human
sciences during the rule of the taghut had two basic flaws. Firstly, they were
governed by a policy aimed at eradication of all religious and Islamic beliefs
from the students' minds. This policy was carried out and its effects were
pervasive although invisible. The other flaw was that the human sciences,
whether in our country or elsewhere, were taught and studied not as a one united
body of interrelated fields, each of which had a bearing on the other and was
essential for proper understanding of the rest and the whole. On the contrary,
students of any of the various fields of the human sciences felt no need to know
of the problems and issues being studied in other branches of the human studies.
There was no awareness in the students of the organic relationship which exists
between all the branches of the human sciences, and the fact that they are like
cells of the same body.
As far as I know, nowhere in the world has the problem of teaching the different
branches of the human sciences as aspects of a one unified whole been completely
solved. I have not even heard of a course being offered which clearly defines
the relationship between these branches. We believe, however, that the
foundation upon which all the human sciences studies are based is composed of a
series of topics that deal with man's identity and what is essentially human.
These topics should be dealt with in all the various branches of the human
sciences. Man should be made known. All the aspects of his being should be
considered. The factors which make his life and development possible, as well
as those factors which lead to his decline and annihilation must be clearly
defined. The ultimate aim of his existence must be understood. As long as these
things are not done, any discussion of economics, law, or any other topic would
lack coherence and a firm foundation. As the Quran points out, they are like a
tree that lacks firm roots:
And the parable of an evil word is as an evil tree pulled up from the earth's
surface; it has no stability. (14:26)
The many fields of the human sciences will have an influence on our society and
on our minds when their position in our entire intellectual scheme is well
defined, and when their relationship with our ideology and world‑view is clearly
delineated. As Muslims, we should know the kind of creature man is from the
point of view of the Quran, how he develops and evolves. What path should he
take in order to reach his perfection? These issues should be discussed and
elaborated at least as general principles. It is only when this is done that we
can say for certain what relationship exists between economics and the
evolution of man towards perfection. As long as we do not know the nature and
essence of man, or the nature of his ultimate perfection, we cannot clearly
perceive the role that economics can play in man's development. The same thing
is true of law. As long as we do not understand the relationship of man to God,
we cannot establish sound foundations for our legal system, and explain the
Islamic view of the nature and origin of `rights'. Is justice something that has
an independent existence in nature, or is it something based on convention? If
it is something based on convention, is that convention based on consideration
of facts or is it purely arbitrary? If it is based on facts what are those
facts? The same is true of fields like psychology, sociology, education, and all
other fields of the human sciences that are related to religious and Islamic
matters. Such matters can only be taken into account, elaborated and explained
in an Islamic context when they are based on Islamic conception of man and human
existence.
In my opinion, even if non‑Islamic or anti‑Islamic schools of thought want to
clearly explain a relationship between the various fields of the human sciences,
they must first put forward a coherent conception of man as perceived through
their own doctrine. For example, as long as they have not postulated a
conception of what man is, they cannot enter the discussion whether economy is a
part of the social infrastructure or superstructure, or whether political,
social, and ethical problems of a society are caused by economic factors or not.
As long as the nature of man and his social existence upon this planet have not
been determined, all such discussions would be baseless. Or, as the Quran says
they would be like a tree which has no roots.
In order for a student to form sound conceptions in regard to economics,
politics, history, anthropology, and other such matters, he must first know what
man is, what are the dimensions of his being, what are the relationships between
these dimensions, how should a man develop so that there is a harmonious
evolution of his multiple dimensions and so that he may not become a "one
dimensional man". If we do not have a clear idea of the various dimensions of
man, how can we put forth an appropriate and well‑balanced programme for his
growth and development?
The programme which we propose for reconstruction of the human sciences and the
restructuring of the human sciences curricula in Iran, is based on the
fundamental idea that before everything there should develop a basic
understanding of man, his essence, a knowledge of the diverse aspects of his
being, and the ultimate perfection towards which he should move. Only when such
an understanding of man is available, can there be a question of ideology
necessary to attain those defined goals. Then the question can be posed as to
what means are required for the attainment of a defined goal; for, the direction
of a journey inevitably depends on the destination that has been determined. As
long as we do not know where to go, we cannot decide about which way to choose;
for the action that we must take inevitably depends on our ultimate objective.
It is on the basis of what is that what must be done can be determined. This
discussion of the ends and means must be carried out in all the human sciences.
The role and function of every one of the branches of the human sciences in
bringing man closer to his ultimate goal must be understood by the prospective
student before he embarks on studies in that particular field. Moreover, having
embarked on his studies, the student must be guided in his course by criteria
based on the Holy Book and the sunnah. His studies must be so oriented that
they lead to the affirmation of the truth of Islam and prove the fallacy of all
anti‑Islamic positions. This must be the guiding principle of the human
sciences programmes in our universities.
Belief in the fundamentals of Islam must be so strengthened in the students that
presentation of anti-Islamic material would be unable to make a dent in their
convictions. Until this is accomplished, it would be wrong to present or teach
anti‑Islamic views to students. When the student is ideologically strong, and is
well grounded in Islamic thought and belief, then he shall be immune to all
false and anti‑Islamic views and positions. Anti-Islamic views can then be
presented to him. These presentations not only will not weaken his belief in the
truths of Islam, but would consolidate his faith in the righteousness of Islam's
teachings and bring to light the incoherence of the views opposed to Islam. Such
views must be systematically studied and disproved in open discussion.
I would like to conclude my remarks here. I pray to God that He may save our
Imam until the appearance of Imam Mahdi (A), and give us the opportunity to
serve Islam and Muslims. May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon you all.
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.
