It is strange that the meaning or connotations of the expressions “good and evil” differ from the meaning of the expressions “permitted and forbidden.” Logic dictates they should coincide. But the vast difference between them today confirms it is the “historical”, “manmade”, and “masculine” mind which produced the concepts of “permitted and forbidden” whereas the concepts of “good and evil” have a human dimension to a large extent.
I invite the reader of this article to review the list of what is counted within the societies of our region as “forbidden” and they will discover specifically what is meant by the “historical”, “manmade” and “masculine” mind which is responsible for codifying the sanctity of dozens and hundreds of things.
I have no doubt that the mind which distinguishes between “good” and “evil” is superior cognitively, intellectually, and culturally to the mind which looks at things from the perspective of “permitted” (halal) and “forbidden” (haram).
There is also no doubt that the references used by the people of “halal” and “haram” are based not mostly but exclusively on “texts” and the sayings of “those before them” rather than on the basis of reason, thought, and logic.
I have never written or spoken the above without my ears ringing with the name of “Abu Hamid al-Ghazali” (died in 1111 AD). He is the one who established in the minds of Muslims in general and in the minds of “jurists” in particular that the human mind is incapable of perceiving these facts on its own! I devoted fully two years of my life (during the eighties of the last century) on the study of the logic of Al-Ghazali through reading all of his writings. This was immediately followed by another two years of intensive study into the complete writings which pronounced a contrary (even opposite) logic to that of Al-Ghazali—by whom I mean the logic of Ibn Rushd (died in 1198 AD), which I read with the utmost scrutiny.
It is a shame for the people of our region not to honor (deservedly) the works and thinking of Ibn Rushd but rather follow that of two jurists, (neither of whom reaches 1% of the value and stature of Ibn Rushd), namely Ibn Taymiyyah (died in 1328 AD) and Al-Jawziyya (died in 1350 AD). The reader should also not lose sight of the fact that the hegemony, control, and influence of the clergy class is (absolutely) in full control of defining what is “halal and haram,” thereby guaranteeing their position as the “main reference source” while eliminating the capacity of all others, including senior scholars, thinkers, and encyclopedic intellectuals, from having input on what is permissible and what is not.
As is no secret, the logic of “halal and haram” does not allow for the concept of humanity to exist! In contrast, the logic and “good and evil” fully allows for the wide expression of humanity. At its core, the “logic of halal and haram” has and always will be the pillar of the US & THEM mentality with all of its negative consequences.
The author of these lines still dreams of an educational, cultural, and intellectual project that promotes the mentality, culture, and logic of “good and evil” using a human formula. I have even dreamed that the logic of “good and evil” be used as a guide and compass to replace the logic of “halal and haram” as the reference through which one lives a humane life. This cannot be achieved before bringing all jurisprudence in line with the saying of the founder of the science of jurisprudence, Abu Hanifa al Nu’man: “We learned this opinion, so whoever brings us one better, we accept it.”
There is no doubt who will fight against this call, including individuals and institutions that will see a reduction in their power and influence, who have used holiness as their first and last reference!
No comments:
Post a Comment