Every man on earth seems to be in
search of an identity for himself that can last a lifetime. I see nothing
wrong with that. In fact, an identity can really set our preferences straight
and keep us steadfast on one path. However, the problem arises when we
confuse the pursuit of an identity with that of limiting ourselves within
the bound of ‘isms’.
A little study of philosophy will
reveal to mind the idea behind any ‘ism’. It portrays a thought that must
encompass all. In other words, an ‘ism’ does not simply entail appreciation
of a school of thought. Rather, it portrays absolute belief in a theory
that bounds all reality within itself. In effect, belonging to an ‘ism’
conveys the belief that all incidences, all phenomena and all occurrences
can be defined and explained from within a thought. Any prescription or
proscription external to it, thus, would be regarded as false and inconsistent.
If one takes notice of the fame that
Marx has achieved in the past, one can be astounded. For even though the
man condemned religion and regarded it only as a product of the oppressed
class, he seems to have created a new religion for his followers - ‘Marxism’.
There is no denying the fact that the man was a thinking individual, that
he had the capacity of luring men towards himself and therefore, towards
his thought. However, in order to be appreciative of one element of his
philosophy does not mean that we must enslave ourselves to everything he
ever had to say. For no matter how intelligent and noble a man may be,
he will remain a man after all. Just as many philosophers argue for ‘rationality’
as being the basis of differentiation between a man and an animal, the
difference between God and man may be highlighted as well. Whilst man can
commit errors and make mistakes on account of his limited knowledge, God
remains All-Knowing and unbounded by any shortcomings. God is ‘infallible’,
man is not.
If one is to admire Marx’s explanations regarding the
demise of Capitalism, to me, there seems to be no harm. However, the moment
we respond to the calls of our excitement and relief by declaring ourselves
Marxists, alarm bells begin to ring. For such a declaration implies that
we are, in fact, ascribing an attribute of infallibility to all theories
resting in the cradle of the Marxian thought. It follows then that belief
in Marx’s critique of a political economy does not necessitate belief in
his definition of religion as the ‘opium of the people’.
Another ‘ism’ that seems to have clutched
our youth is that of Freud’s theories. Having read through the works of
Sigmund Freud, many people claim to be thoroughly impressed. Again, as
far as I see, there is nothing wrong with being impressed with what is
read. However, an affirmation of each and every word within that book and
all others by the psychologist, is not a requisite for any admirer. That
remains a requisite only for the believer with the divine book in his hands.
Yet again, the urge of having an identity for ourselves wins the battle,
and we begin to laud ourselves on acquiring faith in Freudianism.
Care and caution is required in appreciating
a philosophy because, in many cases, it is the innocent admiration that
gradually leads to the extreme – that is, enslavement of the mind. The
same rule ought to be applied concerning Islamic thinkers and scholars
as well. This concern first sprung to me after attending a lecture on Muslim
philosophers. Walking out of the class, a friend began thinking aloud:
‘Should I be a Rationalist? Or should I be a Traditionalist?’. Regardless
of what fate she would decide for herself, I thought the question itself
was wrong. Of course, when we studied Ash‘ari’s criticism on the
Mu‘tazillite approach, the appeal was immense since he wrote with
much conviction, all the while, strictly adhering to the traditions of
religion. On the other hand, when we analyzed Ibn Rushd’s essay
aimed at compelling men to use their sense of reasoning, it appealed greatly
to the intellect. However, such appreciation certainly does not mean that
one should either become a traditionalist and remain a die-hard loyalist
to the Ashariite school of thought, or that one should definitely hail
the God-cosmos relationship as purported by the great Averroes. Because
to do so would amount to a grave error: assigning an unerring quality to
man.
The only quality that we should try
to equip ourselves with is that of realizing the infallibility and absoluteness
of God - and only God. And the only identity that we ought to be satisfied
with is that of being His servant.
|