{"id":9050,"date":"2021-04-09T14:23:49","date_gmt":"2021-04-09T06:23:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/chancellery.utm.my\/casis\/?p=9050"},"modified":"2021-06-16T10:57:49","modified_gmt":"2021-06-16T02:57:49","slug":"knowing-knowledge-through-its-classifications","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chancellery.utm.my\/casis\/blog\/2021\/04\/09\/knowing-knowledge-through-its-classifications\/","title":{"rendered":"Knowing Knowledge through its Classifications"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

by Dr. M. Ikhwan Azlan (RZS-CASIS PhD Graduate)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[This entry is a selected summary and reflection of the RZS-CASIS Saturday Night Lecture (CSNL <\/a>) given by Prof. Wan Mohd Nor on 13th March 2021.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor Wan Mohd Nor began the 11th<\/sup> RZS-CASIS Saturday Night Lecture series by summarizing Chapter 2 of his book The Educational Philosophy and Practice of Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas<\/em>, which was the theme for last season. In discussing this chapter entitled \u201cOn Knowledge and Knowing,\u201d he began by reminding us of the fact that God is Infinite, meaning His Attribute is Infinite. On the contrary, human beings are finite in nature. We are limited in our capacity for knowledge and knowing. Hence, we need to categorize knowledge accordingly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Greeks classified knowledge into three broad categories: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) Theoria; 2) Praxis; and 3) Poetics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Islam, on the other hand, generally regards knowledge to be of two categories:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) Revealed; and 2) developed based on the Revealed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a universal standpoint, we could classify human knowledge to be of two kinds: 1) necessary (bad\u012bh\u012b <\/em>or \u1e0dar\u016br\u012b<\/em>); and 2) that which requires demonstration (iktis\u0101b\u012b<\/em> or istidl\u0101l\u012b<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Throughout history, the civilization of Islam has been encountering and engaging other civilizations including the Greek civilization. This can be seen in the classifications of knowledge developed by philosophers such as al-Kind\u012b, al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, and Ibn S\u012bn\u0101. Their categorizations bare strong resemblances with that of Aristotle\u02bcs, implying implicitly, whether or not intentionally, that Religious Knowledge is not important. The philosophical-spiritual fraternity Ikhw\u0101n al-\u1e62af\u0101, perhaps noticing this deficiency, explicitly mentioned Religious Sciences in their categorization. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the Greco-Roman civilization is now long gone, Isl\u0101m\u02bcs continuous engagement with the dominant civilizations of the time continues\u2014 in our present case: the Modern West. With regards to the classification and categorization of knowledge, Professor al-Attas follows the general arguments of 1) the philosophers; 2) the theologians; and 3) the \u1e62\u016bf\u012bs. Acknowledging the limitations of the first two aforementioned traditions, he affirmed that spiritual experience is to be taken into account as well, as gained by the tradition of the \u1e62\u016bf\u012bs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this sense, knowledge is of two kinds: 1) Ilmu<\/em> Pengenalan<\/em>; and 2) Ilmu<\/em> Pengetahuan<\/em>. The first kind is given directly from God. It is referred to as \u201cIlluminative Knowledge\u02bc\u02bc or \u201cGnosis\u02bc\u02bc. It is called ma\u2018rifah<\/em>. The second kind consists of what is often referred to as the sciences, i.e. the natural sciences, etc. When referring to ma\u2018rifah<\/em>, we recognize that this kind of knowledge is only possible through some kind of \u201ccommunication\u02bc\u02bc between two living entities. God is attributed with the Attribute of Life; so are human beings, albeit in a limited way. Hence, human beings can have ma\u2018rifah <\/em>of God. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At this point, Professor Wan reminded the audience of the analogy of the neighbour often given by Professor al-Attas when explaining the nature of ma\u2018rifah<\/em>. Essentially, no matter how much \u201cinformation\u02bc\u02bc you gather about your neighbour through rigorous observation, certain conclusions about the \u201creality\u02bc\u02bc of this neighbour would remain elusive unless you approach the neighbour, befriend him, gain his trust, and perchance some knowledge about who he is will be disclosed to you. This kind of knowledge is completely unattainable through deductions or inductions from observed data, yet it is very real. After all, it is God Himself who declares that He has not created the jinn and mankind except that they may worship Him (liya\u2018bud\u016bn<\/em>), and this word liya\u2018bud\u016bn <\/em>(to worship) ultimately means, according to Ibn \u2018Abb\u0101s r.a., liya\u2018rif\u016bn <\/em>(to know God), i.e. to have ma\u2018rifah <\/em>of All\u0101h s.w.t. This is the true meaning and utter importance of worship and its relation to knowledge\u2014 whether performed publicly or more importantly, privately. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Understanding the ultimate purpose of worship and seeking knowledge should reorient ourselves and our attitudes towards it in such a way that our actions are based on something that is real and meaningful. Such reorientation would require wisdom or \u1e25ikmah<\/em>, which could be understood partly as the knowledge of the limits (of usefulness) of things, even in knowledge itself and its sciences. Some knowledge, especially that which pertains to the world of sense and sensibles, natural phenomena, and causes and effects, could be accumulated through generational efforts of scientific  traditions, yet some knowledge of the realities of things must be attainable without the necessity of inter-generational efforts, but within the limits of the capacity of an individual. One such knowledge is to affirm, as explained by Imam al-Ghazali, that the real cause in cause-effect relations is God. Al-Hujwiri is noted to have said that he who solely relies on sabab<\/em> (causes) is close to kufur <\/em>(disbelief). On this, Ibn \u1e6cufayl argued through his famous story of \u1e24ayy ibn Yaq\u1e93\u0101n<\/em> argued that it is possible for a person to arrive at such knowledge via his intellect alone, i.e. human beings could naturally come to know the true religion or the proper understanding of God. However, Professor al-Attas criticizes this. According to Professor al-Attas, it is possible for Ibn \u1e6cufayl to make such a claim precisely because he is already thinking within the Islamic framework. The same could not be said to apply to most people in today\u02bcs world. After all, it was al-Shahrastani who mentioned that Iblis rationalized disbelief, in contrast to the angels. According to Hujwiri again, Iblis\u02bcs knowledge is \u2018ilm\u012b<\/em> (formal) but not \u1e25\u0101l\u012b <\/em>(actual-experiential). Believing in God wrongly is not really believing in God, for Iblis also \u201cbelieves\u02bc\u02bc in God. We should not be too presumptuous on these matters as they belong to \u201crevealed knowledge,\u02bc\u02bc at the heart of which lies ma\u2018rifah <\/em>of Allah s.w.t. Modern Muslims must revive the categorization of knowledge which acknowledges this, i.e. 1) Revealed (Ilmu Pengenalan); and 2) Developed based on the revealed (Ilmu Pengetahuan).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following on from this, Ibn \u1e24azm\u02bcs classification of knowledge, the Mar\u0101tib al-\u2018Ul\u016bm<\/em> sought to \u201cplace\u02bc\u02bc religion within its classification. As reflected by the term mar\u0101tib<\/em>, Ibn \u1e24azm\u02bcs classification is hierarchical in terms of priority and posteriority in the order of seeking knowledge. Language and logic are placed at the very beginning of Ibn \u1e24azm\u02bcs scheme, while religion is placed at its very end. In other words, Ibn \u1e24azm regards religion as the culmination of all sciences. This schema is very much different from the ones put forth by Ibn S\u012bn\u0101, al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and others, and is more suitable for non-Muslim environments, where the Islamic framework has to be negotiated with frameworks stemming from other worldviews. Professor al-Attas, however, follows al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b\u02bcs way, which addresses the Muslims specifically and therefore provides more clarity. This illustrates that Islamization is bilateral and can happen in both ways. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Religion of Islam is never a religion that abandons the intellect and the sciences. Quite the contrary, the intellect is of utmost importance in being human. Like the story of Nab\u012b Ibr\u0101h\u012bm a.s. in S\u016brah al-An\u2018\u0101m, verse 77, where Nab\u012b Ibr\u0101h\u012bm was seeking the Truth by using his intellect\u2014 and remember, he was living in a civilization that gave birth to many of the rational sciences we know today, and yet he acknowledged that once Truth arrives, had not God been the One who Guides, he a.s. would surely be amongst those who are lost. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, there are claims today that we teach too much religion in this country; so much religion that our people neglect the sciences. This is not true. The problem is not that we teach \u201ctoo much religion,\u02bc\u02bc rather the extremism<\/em> in the teaching of religion, such that it\u2019s presented too narrowly. We neglect the crucial fact that this religion is also a civilization built upon a sound intellectual and spiritual tradition based on the  culture of knowledge, but this is another topic altogether. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

In the last part of Chapter 2, there is a discussion on the channels of knowledge. This is from the famous 12th<\/sup> century work on Islamic creed, \u2018Aq\u0101\u02bcid al-Nasaf\u012b<\/em>, where the three channels of knowledge are enumerated, namely 1) sound senses; 2) true reports; and 3) intellect. Professor al-Attas explains why even sense-perception is an important channel for the acquisition of religious knowledge since God manifests His Attributes in this world, and we come to know this world through our sense-perception. Similarly, our knowledge of this world is not simply the result of gathering data from sense-perception. There is also the role of reason in organizing and systematizing all the acquired data and then interpreting them to form scientific theories. A reduction of any one of these channels of knowledge leads to extremism and injustice, resulting in a skewed and hence false understanding of religion. Therefore, there is always the real need for wisdom, \u1e25ikmah<\/em>, for it is this wisdom that informs us of the limits of things, going beyond or falling short of which would lead to false knowledge. \u1e24ikmah<\/em> is the product of ma\u2018rifah<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next CSNL will be on the 10th April 2021 or via Zoom, click here <\/a>to register. To read the previous summaries of the 10th RZS-CASIS Saturday Night Lecture Series:<\/p>\n\n\n\n