Destruction is easy. Those who want to destroy something should first know how to construct something. Otherwise, the shortcomings that emerge after destruction will be impossible to solve. Some issues are not open to destruction unless a clear alternative has been set forth. I think one of the most significant missions of the prophets was to set the balance pertaining to this issue. They exposed all the fallacies in society, and exclaimed bravely, “this is incorrect.” They did so convincingly, looking people in the eye. They immediately offered alternative “corrections,” and prevented any sort of chaos or shortcomings. That is, they handled every matter on both positive and negative fronts and did not allow any kind of mental or sensual abyss to emerge. Without plans and projects of “construction” that have been built upon a firm foundation, any sort of destruction or demolition will be reckless.

As a matter of fact, simply due to the lack of this approach, sometimes individuals, sometimes families, sometimes states – in a direct proportion to the dimension of the mischief committed – are destined to collapse. The Ottomans primarily come to our minds, if we want to examine the issue from a state or national perspective. Sometimes, sultans were dethroned with thoughts of replacing them with better ones. But these absences created a power gap, they couldn’t find better rulers, and the people yearned for the old sultans. Because of this, the Ottomans were severely weakened, creating a power vacuum in the region.

It’s with deep regret that we must acknowledge this sort of historical mistake is still being committed. Without alternative, precise plans and projects in place, states or governments are being erased. That is, opposition consists only of loaded slogans and criticism. If they were asked how things really should have been, they would not know. A state or government may surely make mistakes. It should be open to criticism. But that criticism should never amount to, “let’s destroy it and then figure out an alternative.” Such a thought would weaken the state and could even cause the total loss of national credibility.

Believers should have no affiliation with those pursuing incorrect actions. To prevent a serious dissolution of national will, and against the dangers presented, they should always do what is expected of them. To those who chase them and torment them, believers should merely utter, “everyone acts according to his own character” (Qur’an 17:84). On this issue, balance is very important.

In conclusion, everything should be done in accordance with the proper rules. And while endeavoring to construct, the utmost care should be taken to avoid total destruction. Shortcomings should be avoided by heeding historical lessons. And the nation and state should not be recklessly sacrificed.

In this scenario, according to one school of thought, as there is no source of knowledge but intellect for human beings, then there is no alternative with which we can identify the solutions of human problems. We have to go along life’s journey under the guidance of the intellect, bearing the distress of each abortive effort.

A second school of thought opposes this view. It states that intellect alone is not enough to reveal the truths of life and/or to solve the problems. Rather, knowledge is also a source; one can differentiate between right and wrong. Moreover, humans should be able to reach the destination safely and save themselves from the fruitless and exhaustive efforts of the intellect. But unlike animals, knowledge is not an instinctive characteristic of all human beings. Humanity has been given such knowledge through selected persons; this knowledge is called revelation.

Revelation does not exclude human intellect; rather, it respects it and claims that just as the human eye needs light to see, so too does the intellect depend on the light of revelation to be able to view the world correctly.

After having looked at these two different points of views, it is time to compare them.

Today, if human intellect (even after thousands of failures) has discovered the true solution to all problems, then there is no need for human beings to take on revelation as a panacea. The intention of revelation was to solve the problems of life. If such problems have been solved without the assistance of revelation, then it is useless to discuss intellect or revelation.

But what if human intellect is yet to discover the true solution of the problems of life and is yet entangled in the whirlpool of its experiments? Then, it is worth investigating whether humans should continue pursuing these answers with the intellect or whether they should verify the claim of the revelation by adopting its approach for dealing with problematic situations.

Today’s world carries the burden of diverse problems-social unrest, political instability, wide-spread poverty and destitution, prostitution, homicide, drug addiction, alcoholism, the disintegration of the family, juvenile delinquency, terrorism, suicides and AIDS. The figures and forecasts of this virulent disease are intimidating, bearing in mind that prostitution and pornography are not only permitted in many countries worldwide, but are becoming money-spinning sources of living, particularly in the West. This is aggravated by the actuality that there is at present an ever-increasing rise in the international trafficking of children for these purposes. Moreover, infidelity is also on the rise, along with soaring crime rates in leading democratic and formerly communist countries. Undeniable facts illustrate that man-made systems that are devoid of Divine guidance have done more damage than good to humanity. It appears that the ambitions of knowledge and contentment have not been realized.

In philosophy and contemporary sciences-natural, behavioral, and social-the source of knowledge is limited to the human intellect and its five senses. Revelation is dismissed out of hand, and is not considered to be a source of knowledge; it is renounced as being nothing more than a parable or a superstition. This refusal to accept revelation as a source of knowledge is a phenomenon that has both historical and philosophical antecedents.

It is the natural attribute of human intelligence to identify and strive to destroy disorders that exist in and near it; this is part of the “quest for truth.” Astoundingly, regardless of humanity’s efforts to bring order by abolishing these disorders, they are in fact increasing the world over. It is the same intelligence that causes the disorders and the attempts to correct them; the only difference is the level of perception. Intelligence, if it is improved, or not disturbed, believes that it can alter the situation of the world by evangelizing good behavior. Any amount of teaching or intimidation will only bring about a provisional alteration in behavior; yet it is only a fundamental or basic change in humanity’s frame of mind that can change the world.

If we are not able to elucidate “why things are the way they are” by means of principles that are the results of the intellect, then the only alternative, other than abandoning our pursuit, is to search for the true principles as the source. So, one might be led to inquire, where do we turn for an appropriate understanding of reality and the purpose of life itself then? If we cannot rely on the knowledge or findings of any human source, then where can we discover a dependable source of knowledge?

Moreover, knowledge that is gained through the endeavor of the intellect does not exist in isolation, but rather is linked with the economics and politics of the culture from which it arises, as well as all the rest of that culture. The thoughts, attitudes, feelings, values, motives, purposes, goals, modes of action and organization, rituals, and institutions of a society are all interrelated and all affect one another. The attention to nature, the idea that there are causes for things, that there is an underlying harmony and something constant behind change and diversity, and that the Universe is regulated by laws are attitudes that result from religion. These are pre-requisites that must be fulfilled before science can begin.

In fact, the Qur’an attaches great worth to human intellect. It appeals to the intellect of its addressees in order to persuade them about its legitimacy as the word of God. It denounces those who fail to employ their intellects as being undeserving of God’s blessings, and being no better than animals. Furthermore, those who do not have the appropriate mental ability-for example, children before they reach the age of puberty and the mentally ill-are not expected to fulfill the requirements imbedded in the message of Islam according to the Prophet.

Nevertheless, these facts about the intellect do not signify that human intellect does not have its limitations. It can be swayed to believe, for instance, what opposes its own instincts. Unrestrained eagerness for a definite model, equally, can cause the intellect to be prejudiced to what is undeserving of endorsement. There are, likewise, some intriguing problems which are beyond its grasp. All these limitations restrain the efficiency of human intellect if used without restrictions. It appears to yearn-given these restrictions-for external guidance. Divine Revelation in the form of the messages of the prophets (peace and blessings be upon them) is this very guidance. The Qur’an and Sunna (way of life of the Prophet) represent the final version of this guidance. The Qur’an has given an account of the connection between Divine Revelation and human intellect as being light upon light (Qur’an 24:35); that is, the guidance of human intellect is principally a light, although with defects (and therefore not bright), while the Divine revelation in the form of the Qur’an is a brighter light to compensate for the imperfections of the intellect. Hence, a brighter light (the Divine revelation) exhibits the path to a less bright light (the human intellect).

Islam, being the final source of revealed knowledge in the modern world, also equips us with the techniques to differentiate between good and evil. It does not base our knowledge of wickedness and virtue on mere intellect, desire, intuition, or experience that are derived through the senses; these frequently experience changes and alterations and therefore fail to offer explicit and unchanging ethical norms. As an alternative, Islam provides us with an unbiased source, the Divine revelation, as is obvious in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet. This source recommends a standard of moral conduct that is lasting and universal, holding true in every age and under all circumstances.

References

• Barbour, Ian G., “Religion in an Age of Science”, HarperCollins: New York, 1991.
• Hooykaas, R., “Religion and the Rise of Modern Science”, Scottish Academic Press, 1972.

According to the author, Islams response to modernity has passed through three stages: revivalism, reform (including nationalism), and fundamentalism. Each has emerged from the former ones failure: the inability to achieve true independence, self-sustaining economic and scientific infrastructures, and a realistic alternative to a now-globalized system that marginalizes and ignores the Muslim world.

Lawrence builds his book around several arguments. First, Islam and being Muslim are not synonymous with being Middle Eastern Arabs, who are a minority within the fold of Islam. Second, the Islamic world is not a unified bloc, as shown by failures at attempts to unify individual countries or even to agree on what constitutes real Islam. Thus there is no basis for the Wests fear of a so-called clash of civilizations. Lawrence maintains that the likelihood of this happening is as remote as Canada, the United States, and Mexico uniting because they profess Christianity.

Third, fundamentalism has surged since the 1970s because of the failure of Arab nationalism, the use of oil money to create dependent rentier states, and the success of the Iranian revolution (1979). Other reasons include an omnipresent nation-state structure that blocks all outlets of legitimate protest, as well as the practices of every party trying to justify itself in terms of Islam because that is the most effective rallying cry.

Fourth, fundamentalists are mainly educated urban or newly urbanized young men who have little hope of finding a job after graduation, instead of the stereotypical types often presented in the media. Frustrated and angry, yes; but far from being uneducated, illiterate, and easily swayed by demagogues. What attracts them to fundamentalism is its black-and-white nature and its promises of a better and more just future. Unfortunately, fundamentalism preaches idealism and utopia, is destructive instead of constructive, and offers no viable alternative (Iran being the sole exception).

Throughout this book, Lawrence maintains that Iran is worth watching, for it is the social laboratory in which Islam is grappling with modernity on a daily basis. Another Muslim country worth watching is Malaysia, which has moved jihad from the battlefield to the economic and development plane by striving to become a fully modern industrialized nation by 2020. It appears to be the first Muslim country actively trying to disprove the assertion that Islam precludes such a transformation.

The author also discusses the role of women, a favorite media topic. Basing himself on several geographically distinct Muslim countries, he concludes that attempts to restrict women to the home, while often justified in Islamic terms by a patriarchal sociopolitical order, reflect the fact that there are not enough jobs to go around even for men. As long as the army remains one of the few ways of social and economic advancement, economies do not develop and expand, modern technical education remains beyond reach for most young people, and skilled foreign workers are hired because there are not enough trained local workers, this problem will persist.

Lawrence has done the reading public a great service by reaching beyond stereotypes and lazy scholarship to give us a much more realistic view of the Muslim world and its inhabitants.