Victims of specialisation.
I’d wanted to comment on Fiqh & King-Kong (a must-read) by Shaykh Tawfique Chowdhury but eh, since it came up to a novel-ish entry, I shall post my own thoughts here…
Great article. Precisely pinpoints the problem. A brother once aptly put it as that we’ve become “victims of specialisation”. Where we not only ridiculously separate the “deeni” from the “worldly” studies and pursue only one or the other, but even when we do choose, we confine our scope to such a small area that we hardly function to society’s true benefit. For example, a brother returns from one of the renown Islamic centres having “majored” in Hadith sciences, “specialising” in sanad. Kudos and hats off, masha Allah, but when we look up to such brothers and sisters for inspiration, we see a pending specification beyond our own reach.
This condition isn’t limited to our section of society, in fact the secular academic institutions are perhaps the major perpetrators (get it?). Instead of a quick fix “let’s encourage people to add variety to their education”, there of course needs to be further research into what’s already been tried and tested. The Islamic schools here, for example, try to include and emphasise “secular” subjects in their curricula. But word on the ground is always that it’s such a burden upon the students, with many struggling to cope.
So uhh, do we revamp the whole education system then? Again, you’d find education agencies across the globe have brought up the issue in similar form before. Locally, it’s been generally to inculcate a sense of sports and a love for the arts in children - to help develop such talents beyond pure academics. It’s always a matter of the extent of such policies actually being implemented, and how successful they are in today’s context. My point though is that, let’s not fancy ourselves overnight heroes to bring about change with just simple discussion. In the end, an effective solution still has to come at some sort of authoritative level and definitely with hard teamwork.
Unity in diversity. I think that was the other issue I saw in Shaykh Tawfique’s article. Of course the brother in example was doing his own dissertation and therefore work for the most part, alone. But generally speaking, instead of having to individually delve into different fields ourselves, how about bringing our expertise together? After all, we do often boast about having too many doctors and engineers and such. Rather than simply interviewing them for expert opinion, engage them to actively partake in Islamic research too. Such collaborations have been done before, for sure… But is it an exploited enough method?
Educate thyself. Other than that, on an individual level, as I inferred from the original article, we can of course take it upon ourselves to study further. I know what I just said in the last para, but this is if you’re able, have the means to and care enough (for the living, make it a better place for you and for me. muahaha.).
No excuses eh. Mind over (muslim)matter. The only barrier is your own self. Check out this lovely list 7 Deadly Mindsets that Hold You Back From Learning Effectively which includes the lame excuse of “I’m too old to learn”. Learning stops at the grave innit.
Help others in the quest. In the least, encourage those whom you know can. More than words, financing helps a great deal. Unfortunately, the eighth deadly mindset amongst us is often “I can’t afford this”, when true rizq comes from Allah. Perhaps taking a break from stable income is understandably too risky at this moment, what with responsibilities of a new family and all. BUT you can still spare some for someone else in a better position to take on the “academic challenge”. I’m sure many already sponsor studies for orphans and needy children, but how about our own scholars? Facilitating the path itself would be just as rewarding, insha Allah.
For the mama and papa bears. And finally, as parents, ourselves educators, we could always set our children on that path to being the gloriously multifaceted minds of the future. No simple feat either, but may Allah give us strength. Certainly, we could do better than recheck the classical works and instead reexamine the way of the classical scholars themselves, whose erudition went far beyond religious sciences.
like you said :”let’s not fancy ourselves overnight heroes to bring about change with just simple discussion.” but a great start would be to start defining our (muslim/islamic) framework of what constitutes as a beneficial and comprehensive education.
Indeed. What I was implying in the lines before though was that there’re constantly moves towards the betterment of education. I’m not in the education line and I know this much that there’re people, whether Muslims or otherwise, who have already researched and written extensively on such issues.
But ironically - the complete opposite of the problem mentioned in the shaykh’s article - people tend to ignore what already exists and think they have to or can start from scratch. No matter how different the idealistic system is, we simply must explore and learn from current and previous ones.
And for those of us who aren’t exactly connected to the field, besides what is being suggested of individual nature, involve ourselves with what already exists of ideas and efforts. Quite breaking away to do things “your way” and waste so much time and energy only to realise you hit the same bumps your predecessors did. This is what I personally believe in anyway.
The other thing that came to mind when I read your comment was what Muhammad al-Shareef relayed of his experience in wanting to set something up (Al-Maghrib I believe it was - but I can’t remember for sure)… That nobody really wanted to help in writing up the framework, but everyone had all sorts of criticism when he wrote it up.
So perhaps it does take an individual effort like that to get the big ball rolling.
Hmm. I don’t know how much of this is relevant, I kinda went off on a tangent. But I basically agree with you lol. Do share your ideas, or if you know of others’.
With all due respect, regardless of what Tawfique chowdhry said, I don’t think you realize what you are talking about. Or, you have chosen not to think the way you should have.
quote:”For example, a brother returns from one of the renown Islamic centres having “majored†in Hadith sciences, “specialising†in sanad. Kudos and hats off, masha Allah, but when we look up to such brothers and sisters for inspiration, we see a pending specification beyond our own reach.”
This is an ill concieved example. One may ask why? It’s due to various reasons. First of all a person specializing in hadith (atleast in Madaris of Pakistan that follow dars-e-nizami curriculum) doesn’t merely learn hadith and it’s related sciences. In fact, for first 6-8 years they go through books of basic fiqh, lugha, and readings of various sharh’s of ahadith. People do not see a pending specification beyond their reach; they create such a specification by asking to know more than they should. A layman should be content with what he’s told.
Specilization is the natural consequence of an Islamic society, if it is to function properly. Simply put not everyone is expected to be at the level of a scholar. A person who has gone through basic texts of fiqh and aqeedah is sufficiently informed and can participate in both deeni and duniyawi life equallly.
quote: ” In the end, an effective solution still has to come at some sort of authoritative level and definitely with hard teamwork.”
There’s a bit fo contradiction here. If you are a ‘know-it-all” then teamwork is not required. If you expect teamwork to reach at the level where you don’t require teamwork anymore, then that’s hypocrisy, because you are working against the very system which allowed you to reach at whatever level you are. Precisely, one of the reasons why there were not many mujtahidun, and certainly isn’t one today. Which brings me to the next point;
“Certainly, we could do better than recheck the classical works and instead reexamine the way of the classical scholars themselves, whose erudition went far beyond religious sciences.”
This is a very dangerous assertion due to various reasons. In fact, such statements are the result of a modernist and pseudo-reformist thinking (btw, salafism also happens to be a by-product of modernism).
Established fiqhi rulings, that have been derived through a sound fiqhi methodology, cannot be contested unless the person is himself or herself a mujtahid. Hence, fiqh cannot be ‘re-examined’ but only added to as we face new situations. So, to suggest we should ‘re-examine’ fiqh, is akin to saying ‘we need to change fiqh’, which is no different than saying we need to question and reassess our basics.
You definitely misunderstood the bulk of what I’m saying. I’ll attempt to clarify but it’s hard when you’re the kind to dismiss just about any perceived differing notion to “modernism”, etc.
1. Why do you say this is an “ill-conceived example” when later on you say we needn’t reexamine scholarly works in fiqh (this part addressed in #3)? Sanad studies are important, but what does specialising in this field signify *a lot* (not all) of the time? Usually, this goes into “rechecking” evidences from the past, right? Although as I said, it’s important and can be used to ascertain contemporary issues. But I’m merely pointing out that your argument is a contradiction against what you believe too. Similarly why not leave ahadith as verified by the great muhaddithun of the past then?
I never undermined the calibre of our students of knowledge, may Allah raise their status. But even scholars of today themselves will tell you the system produces more memorisers than they do thinkers. And this was also relayed to a different extent in the shaykh’s original article.
If not for myself, a layperson, then certainly for the children, should it be of concern.
2. Please see the context of this. I said this in relation to looking into the education system of today. The actual system. And in my comment before yours, I’ve explained that I don’t mean to neglect what exists or what has been of the past. Rather work with it and explore areas for improvement. Nothing’s perfect except the ideal model provided by Islam. The implementations of which, are sometimes obviously flawed.
You’d find many brothers returning to their alma mater to sit on the board which constantly looks into improving their curriculum, etc. I ruled out acting as some renegade hero. Oft-times, such actions (to break away) translate into a waste of precious time and energy.
3. That has to be the biggest misinterpretation of all. Nowhere did I mention reexamine fiqh. Subhan Allah. In fact I was saying to leave exactly that which you’re contesting! To do better than such.
I was saying that instead, let’s look into the *way*, the PATH of these scholars. How did they manage to achieve such a status, what was their education like? As proud as we are of our Islamic institutions, are they even close to the traditional methods that produced such greats? How were they, some among these fine imams, as individuals, able to be the masters of fields not only across Islamic sciences but even scientific research?
And anyway this point was in relation to ourselves as parents. To learn how they studied so that we may impart advice to the young’uns.
To deny the possibility of there being any contemporary figure to reach such erudition is understandable. But to admit this, is also an admission of the failure of our systems. And this, is not just what I’m saying should be looked into,… But what I’m stressing, is *already* being examined.
I apologise if my articulation in my original post caused this gross misunderstanding. Perhaps it was my mistake in how I played with the words. Wallahu a’lam. But whoa, that was quite something else levelled against me.
It’s kinda funny now that I reread the whole thing.
One of the main points in my post is that expertise across vast areas has been successfully achieved in the past, the question is how do we emulate this, what is being done to render this into our education. But interestingly your sarcasm against “know-it-all”s can be seen as a mocking description for these very scholars of old who mastered many fields. “Know-it-all”s. It’d be unfair to infer this from your comment as I’m sure you wouldn’t mean any disrespect to the ulama.
But eh, just for illustration purposes, that seems to be exactly the way you chose to read into my writing.
“when you’re the kind to dismiss just about any perceived differing notion to “modernismâ€, etc.”
You need substantiate this, otherwise I would have to “dismiss” at as something of which you have no proof.
“Why do you say this is an “ill-conceived example†when later on you say we needn’t reexamine scholarly works in fiqh (this part addressed in #3)? ”
Uloom al hadith and Fiqh are two very different sciences. Im sure you aren’t unaware of this fact.
“Sanad studies are important, but what does specialising in this field signify *a lot* (not all) of the time? Usually, this goes into “rechecking†evidences from the past, right?”
Actually, they only “check” the isnaad and what past muhaditheen have said in order ascertain a hadith or a narrator etc. That’s why you find them saying “al-hakim said this”, “bukhari said that,” and NOT “I say this”, “My friend says that”. They are not at the level of rechecking. Very few muhaditheen of today (let alone some mere student of hadith) have contested the conclusions of much of past scholars of hadith.
“But I’m merely pointing out that your argument is a contradiction against what you believe too.”
Care to elaborate?
“But even scholars of today themselves will tell you the system produces more memorisers than they do thinkers.”
Care to give names? There are plenty of thinkers around such as shaykh salman al-awdah, shaykh Nuh, Shaykh Didou and so on just to name a few. It is quite insulting to contend that bulk of islamic scholarship are bunch of idiots.
“looks into improving their curriculum, etc”
This doesn’t mean they are bringing something new, just finding better ways to teach what’s already there.
“Nowhere did I mention reexamine fiqh.”
I’ll just qutoe your words:
“and instead reexamine the way of the classical scholars themselves,”
Although I admit some confusion may have arose over how you used the word “re-examine”.
“But to admit this, is also an admission of the failure of our systems.”
It’s not necessarily a failure of the system, it’s a historical reality. Past scholars had access to much more knowledge and much more knowledgeable people than we have today.
“But interestingly your sarcasm…”
The only thing is that I was being sarcastic.
“But eh, just for illustration purposes, that seems to be exactly the way you chose to read into my writing.”
The only difference being; your “reading” was deliberate, mine wasn’t.
Yes, I do apologise for that line of mine. I could attempt to exemplify it, but it was an unnecessary personal attack.
Anyway, I’ve clarified my stance. To reply further would be to dwell on an argument of technicalities. And I barely trust myself with keeping emotions at bay. But jazakallahu khair for your comments. Some of your points are noted regardless. The details do indeed matter.
My apologies if I’ve offended.
Asalamu Walaikum,
I’m not sure how I finally found your blog, but I am suprised it took me soooo long.
I am working on a research project for my English degree and was wondering if you would fill out a survey for me? Please, please?
Basically it is to help access if there is a need for more print material in English for Muslims.
I can’t find your email on your blog…will you please email me and I can send it to you?
Thanks either way…
~Brooke AKA Ummbadier
aloneandonly@msn.com
wa ‘alaykum as-salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh
I’m not sure if I’m the right person you’re looking for lol. But anyway, I’d love to help if I could, insha Allah, so I’ve sent an email your way.
:)
So basically, after skimly skim-reading that, we need to educate ourselves, our families, our neighbours, friends, kids, the cat next door and stop reinventing the wheel and help others work on their wheels and redesign ‘em if need be.
innit. or am I completely off the mark?
Sure. Heh.
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article , but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.