Islamization of Knowledge
It is customary among the Muslims in this nation to criticize abstractly those who have accepted the burden of da’wu and the program they implement. The most vocal opposition, and the most unreasonable and, therefore, destructive, comes from other Muslims who have not themselves consistently put fo...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
International Institute of Islamic Thought
1988
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/7eb5f37e634846feb2a9f76c02a0cd58 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | It is customary among the Muslims in this nation to criticize abstractly
those who have accepted the burden of da’wu and the program they implement.
The most vocal opposition, and the most unreasonable and, therefore,
destructive, comes from other Muslims who have not themselves consistently
put forth the effort required of those involved in du’wu. There is in this nation
a tradition of catcalls from the sidelines of any struggle. We have a historic
love of castigating moving targets as we sit on our doffs. This nation is a
place where the concept of fan (derivative of fanatic) has grown to mean
non-participative critic. I know that this is the case because I have been the
moving target of this criticism and, at other times, the critic who sits.
This is why your request that I read and critique ZsZamimtion of Knowledge:
General Principles and Work Plan published by the International Institute
of Islamic Thought has made me somewhat uneasy. What would validate
my criticism? The fact that for nearly ten years I have been disassociated
from those who have dedicated themselves to the Islamic movement? The
fact is that I would like to reengage myself in the struggle without false
portrayals of the last ten years. The fact that you asked me in such a kind
and understanding way to express myself in the context of the International
Institute of Islamic Thought’s primary document is the only reason for my
composing the following comments.
I have paralleled the outline of the book in the presentation of these
comments and notes.
Preface
I was surprised that the preface was written by one of my former teachers
because when I was a student, he impressed upon me the need for precise
language. To translate mau biqum as “fate” instead of “condition” may seem
minor but within the context of a text discussing the Islamization of knowledge
it is not a small matter. “Fate of a people” is not really an Islamic concept.
Fate is generally understood to mean an inevitable and often adverse outcome.
This is certainly not what the author intended, especially in the context of
the ayah referred to.
The crux of the preface rests on the non-neutrality of the sciences. It
is important to realize that the sciences are, in fact, value-laden and that ...
|
|---|