By Dr. Recep Şentürk
Dr. Recep Şentürk is a senior Turkish social scientist, specializing in the sociology of religion and civilization studies. In this paper, he reflects on the meaning and definition of civilization, the different perspectives related to it, and how these perspectives inform our education system.
Translated from the Turkish by Saad Razi Shaikh
Introduction
What is civilization? There are several different answers to this question. From amongst these, we’ll first look at Ibn Khaldun’s. Ibn Khaldun himself took his definition of civilization from al-Farabi, and developed it into a separate discipline called ‘ilm al-‘umran. In this approach, society and ‘umran are identical concepts. To speak of civilization is to speak of society. If a place possesses a social order and has a collective system, it is said to have a civilization. Consequently, Ibn Khaldun’s ‘ilm al-‘umran terminology can also be translated as the “social sciences”.
In Ibn Khaldun’s understanding, the presence of religion, ethics, economic life, and a social hierarchy is the criteria to determine whether a place possesses civilization or not. If the aforementioned factors are present in a place, civilization is present there. Therefore, any place in any part of the world which shows a clearly organized society is a civilized society. It cannot be called a primitive society.
However, to showcase their own society as superior to other societies, the West fixed technological advancement as the only criterion of civilization. Because technologically they were superior and more advanced than others, they considered that there was only a single civilized society, which was the Western society. Others were uncivilized and primitive.
In this view, non-western societies, upon progressing, would eventually arrive at the point Western society had reached. The non-western societies had fallen behind in social evolution, upon maturing they would reach the point where the West has presently reached. Referring to this idea, Marx once remarked that non-western societies see their future in Western society. In his book The End of History, Fukuyama claimed that the historical development of human society had concluded, the last stage was the liberal capitalist order, there is no further advancement possible beyond it, and that the present-day American society is the embodiment of this final stage. According to him, humans should no longer seek alternative paths, because a system better than the liberal capitalist one would not emerge. The rest of the world should strive to reach the same stage, any other pathway need not be entertained.
When we look from this perspective, a question emerges. In the Golden Age, didn’t the Prophet ﷺ establish a civilization? If we consider the criteria of civilization provided by Farabi and Ibn Khaldun, we see that they set the criteria of civilization as the existence of a highly organized social order, and people possessing knowledge of reality. But if we take the criterion of civilization as technological advancement, as argued by Fukuyama and company, the society established by the Prophet ﷺ would not be considered a civilized one. Why? Because the Prophet ﷺ and his companions did not built huge buildings and monuments, and their society wasn’t technologically advanced.
The scholars of civilization generally consider the building of huge and lasting monuments as a sign of civilization such as the pyramids in Egypt built by the pharaohs and the huge Roman castles and monuments etc. For such scholars, the building of monuments like these is the criterion for civilization. According to them, if such buildings do not exist in a place, then civilization doesn’t exist there!
A Different Conception of Civilization
Our Prophet ﷺ however embraced a very different conception of civilization. Not a single big building was constructed by him, and he did not leave behind eye-catching huge monuments! For as he put it, he had been sent only to perfect good character. According to him, the criteria for civilization is good character, and religion for him is but good character. Therefore, the Prophet ﷺ was the master builder of good character, the builder of people possessing good character, not the builder of monuments. In the absence of good character, what good are huge monuments, which are usually constructed by the revenue generated from exploitation and excessive taxes?
The Prophet ﷺ propounded a new vision of civilization. In this new vision, civilization means the perfection of good character. The goal of civilization is the perfection of good character, and a civilization proves itself through the cultivation of good character amongst the people. Civilization is not building huge buildings with the purpose of proving one’s distinctiveness, power, and superiority through them. The aforementioned visions are two contrasting ideas about the nature of civilization.
Our education policy firstly needs to clarify its civilization vision and accordingly make the building of such a civilization its goal. Take the example of a factory. Every factory has an objective which is to produce a good. The same is true for any kind of project. Every activity is pursued in light of some objective. Education is also an activity. In that case, what is the objective of education? What is to be produced? What should be its end result? This needs to be determined clearly at the outset.
In the last century, Turkish education policies made a break with Islamic civilization, in favor of Western civilization. Its objective can be gleaned in light of this. However, over the course of a century, continuing even today, it is understood that such a thing is neither required nor possible. The reason being that Turkish society is not a primitive, tribal one. It possesses a civilization germane and appropriate to it. Why was the Islamic civilization abandoned and Western civilization adopted? Firstly, there was no need, secondly, such a thing is impossible to do.
For, unlike a computer’s memory, a society’s memory cannot be erased. A new civilization cannot be installed there. Every society inherits its own civilization, its heart and mind brim with it. If beforehand the goal of education is wrongly determined, if it isn’t properly discussed, if there is uncertainty in the mind regarding it, then society’s youth cannot be raised in a clear direction. The goal of education shouldn’t be to delete the memory of a society. On the contrary, the goal of education should be to carry forward its collective memory, to rejuvenate and transfer it to the new generation.
Previously, the Turkish society had “Kizilelma” (golden apple) as a civilizational ideal and goal. America has a goal, Israel has a goal, Iran has a goal, and the European Union has a goal. What are the goals of the Turkish nation or the Muslim ummah? In a year’s time, after fifty years, after a hundred years, what do we wish to accomplish? The Ottomans had a goal, to bring the Mediterranean milieu under Islamic rule which they called the golden apple (kızıl elma). In the context of civilization, what is the golden apple or “kizilelma” of Turkish society or the ummah today? What is the goal?
The Ideal Human Being
Education is the means through which society raises the person it considers to be ideal. Every civilization has the archetype of the ideal human being. Education becomes the means to raise such an ideal human being. What is the ideal human being in the Islamic tradition? It is usually referred to as “insan kamil” (ideal/perfect human). The ideal human being in Islam (insan kamil) does not mean an infallible person but a person who acknowledges his mistakes, repents for them, and does his best to compensate for them as represented by the example of Prophet Adam, peace be upon him.
Insan kamil isn’t a utopia. Its clearest example is the Prophet ﷺ himself, and the companions he raised. The goal of Islam is to raise insan kamil. For the Muslim possessing intelligence (shu’ūr), all of his or her life is worship to Allah. That is, family life, business transactions, everything is part of worship. Worship isn’t limited only to prayers. If people conduct their dealings knowing that Allah is watching them, then society is at a very high moral stage. This shows up in social relations. A person’s ‘kamal’ (perfection) in the truest sense is hidden not in their ablutions and prayers, but in their social relations and transactions with others
The goal of Islamic civilization is the upbringing of the aforementioned insan kamil. This is the goal we need to return to. In today’s time, Muslims have established many private universities. Their education programs mimic the ones found in American universities. In such a situation, a problem emerges. If the American universities are already offering such programs and content, what is the need for such universities by Muslims?
This problem emerges only because the question of how the ideal human would be raised, and the role education would play over it, has not been addressed. Education policies need not be politically determined. Firstly, as a society, we need to determine what kind of a human being we need to raise, and what would be the characteristics of such a person. Similar to a factory, which makes diagrams and models of the intended product before commencing production, we too need to determine properly the kind of person we wish to cultivate through our education system. The objective in education may not, perhaps should not, materialize completely because we are dealing with human beings but not machines. However, that is not an issue. What is important is that a goal must be clearly set for an education system. When a society’s education system doesn’t have a clear goal, it’ll unknowingly cultivate human beings according to the model set by other civilizations. This lack of clarity in the goal of education and a systematic approach to achieve it through education and measures to test it raises a group of people who are at times opposed to their own civilization, without even realizing it.
In the American system of education, the question of what is truth/reality[1] is seen outside of the bounds of science. In the Islamic system, however, the purpose of education is to teach people the nature of reality. What is the goal of education in the Turkish system? Is it raising students as Westerners, wherein they get trained in a particular profession? Or is it, to provide them professional education, in addition to the knowledge about reality and how to become insan kamil, the ideal human being according to Islamic civilization?
Here, there are two civilizational visions, two different civilization-inspired visions of the ideal human being. First and foremost, to become distinct from the West, we need to determine our civilizational vision. Because if the civilizational vision isn’t clear, the education policy too won’t be clear. In such a system, the human being we dream of will not materialize. The American system seeks to cultivate a person who is individualistic, pragmatic, entrepreneurial i.e., a self-seeking rationalist person. Rationalist here (the term rationalist is not the same as used in our tradition) refers to the way a person reaches his goal using the shortest route possible. This also includes the following meaning: if in the shortest route possible, religion and moral rules act as an obstacle, scant regard will be paid to them. The conflict between religion and reason in the West emerges here. Imagine a person who wishes to become rich in a short span of time. Wherever the shortest route takes him, he’ll be willing to go along. If it is told to him that interest is prohibited, it will seem unreasonable to him. Why? Because on the path he has selected, it acts as an obstacle for him.
Whereas in our tradition, such thinking is called ‘aql ma’ashi (mundane rationality). According to Imam al-Ghazali, there are two different types of rationality, worldly rationality (‘aql al-ma’āsh) and the metaphysical rationality (‘aql al-mī’ād) The Prophet ﷺ said that “the rational person is the one who subjugates his lower self and strives for the Hereafter.’
There are two ways to approach ‘rationality’. In the first approach, the person who employs the shortest possible means to achieve worldly benefit is considered rational. In the other approach, however, the person who watches over his lower self and works for the Hereafter is considered a rational person. Our education system will cultivate a rational person. The question is, which of the two rational people will it be? This question ties back to the issue of civilizational vision.
If we study the history of Islamic civilization, we see that it consists of several different stages. Before Islam, there was of course no Islamic civilization. Before Christianity however, there was a Western civilization. We can therefore say that Western civilization was not borne out of Christianity. Christianity, after coming into the picture, was patched onto it. And western civilization changed Christianity. On the other hand, Islamic civilization emerged through the Qur’an and Sunnah. Islamic civilization is the one built by the Qur’an. The Qur’an is a book that builds civilization.
To understand this, we only need to look at the history of the Turks before and after the advent of Islam. Before embracing Islam, the Turks were building tents in Central Asia. Once they became Muslims, they built such monuments as the Suleymaniye and the Selimiye mosques. From which level of civilization to which level did they transition? It was of course because of our Prophet ﷺ that we were pulled out of that stage. The Arabs used to live as Bedouins in the desert. The Qur’an gave them such a civilizational vitality that in a very short span of time they went on to build one of the biggest and most prominent civilizations in the world, they reached a stage where they could direct other civilizations. Today, the Qur’an and the Sunna are still there with us, but their force to found a civilization is not being made use of properly.
The Roman Empire, the Chinese Empire, and the Ottoman Empire are the three largest empires in world history. In contrast to the other two, the Ottoman Empire was run by a single family throughout its seven hundred years. The Roman and the Chinese changed ruling dynasties almost every century. But the Ottomans were able to continue with a single ruling dynasty. The vitality required for this was provided by the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
Islam is a religion that engenders civilization. Every society that embraced Islam rose as a civilization. Education too was formulated according to it; Islam was taught as both a religion and a civilization. How is the education system in Islam? We may now turn to this question.
According to Ibn Khaldun, Islamic civilization possesses two characteristics distinct from other civilizations, isnad, and fiqh. Neither of the two are to be found in other civilizations. Both relate to the field of education.
The Isnad System
What is the Isnad system? It is a system of documenting knowledge. It is a document that shows that a student obtained instruction under the watch of a particular teacher. This document is also called an ijazah, or sanad. What does this document consist of? The sanad is based on the teacher’s teacher, then the teacher’s teacher, going all the way up to the Prophet ﷺ. The sanad documents the manner in which knowledge is transferred from one generation to another, the manner in which it reaches the student. Before Islam, no other civilization found this method necessary. Why did Muslims feel the need for it? Because the social order of Islam is established through it. If even a single distortion happens in a hadith or ayah, a social or economic crisis may happen. For example, if the word ‘riba’ is removed from the Quran, the entire established economic order will completely change. For this reason, the isnad system is created. The entire education system is based on it. In every field, ijazah is given to the graduates.
Isnad is therefore said to be the foundation of Islamic knowledge and civilization. If a person claims to possess certain knowledge, the question directed at him is “What is your basis?” This is why isnad is important. It shows that the knowledge has come from the Prophet ﷺ. This is why this system was created. The specialty of it is the following: A self-proclaimed scholar cannot emerge out of it. The place where one acquired knowledge and ijazah must be accounted for. A person without an ijazah cannot engage in discourses, he or she cannot give out fatwas. This ijazah was a part and parcel of every field. The isnad also allowed the person to teach others in his field, to instruct students, and to work as a qadi. Who gave this ijazah? It was given by the alim (scholar), the teacher. In our age and time, who gives the document called the diploma? It is the institution.
The West took the university and the diploma system from Muslims but they corrupted some of its fundamental features. For instance, the teacher was disempowered in the West as he was not allowed to issue the diploma to his students after graduation. This was in contradistinction to the Islamic education system where teachers alone could issue the diploma to their students but not the administration of the school.
In Islamic education, there was a great emphasis on pedagogy and the etiquette of the teachers and student relationship (adab). For example, there was the concept of ‘not allowed to teach what you know’ in the ijazah system which was called “al-i’lam”. Those who were not trained in pedagogy were not granted the right to teach what they knew to the students. In our times, it exists in the form of pedagogy in education. Without pedagogy in education, teaching cannot be properly performed. Yet unfortunately adâb in the relationship between teacher and student is no longer part of the pedagogy of education in the Muslim world. The Islamic adâb is replaced by the liberal ethics in the teacher-student relationship in the process of westernization.
All of these systems Islamic civilization propounded and implemented centuries ago. The West took this system from Islamic civilization and distorted it. How? By removing the chain of transmission (isnad) from it. Why? Because the isnad didn’t exist in the West. There is no chain of transmission going all the way back to Prophet Jesus.
Who gives the diploma (ijazah) in the Western tradition? The institution. Previously, the Church used to give it. After secularization, the State began to give it. In the isnad system, the institution or the State cannot give the ijazah. The scholar from whom one learns, the teacher who gave the lessons, he’ll provide the ijazah. In the Islamic civilization, the scholars possessed the authority which today is held by the education boards and directorates. The ijazah would allow a person to become a teacher, give legal judgments, and work as a qadi. In today’s time, this authorization is provided by government boards. In Islamic civilization, this authorization was provided by the scholar to the student.
In Western civilization today, there is an institutional system. In other words, mass production. The teacher delivers the lesson to the students and leaves. In the exams, the one who writes well passes. The teacher doesn’t even know the student. At times, the student may get his grade and clear the exam without even spending a minute with the teacher. Later, if the student isn’t raised properly, who’ll be held responsible? In the ijazah system, the teacher’s name and signature is present. If the student goes astray, the teacher is held responsible. This can be explained using the following example. Imagine two paintings. The first is produced in a factory. The second is made by a painter, using his own hands, putting in his own efforts, with his name under the painting. Are the two paintings the same? In the second example, the artist’s signature is seen. From the start to the end, the artist labored and created the painting. This was however not the case in the first painting, which was mass-produced in a factory. It contains no signature of its maker. There is a huge difference between the two paintings.
In the isnad system, it is not just knowledge that gets transferred from the teacher to the student. It is also the practice of that knowledge. Because in the isnad system, the teacher not only imparts the knowledge, but he also keeps a tab on the student, whether he is practicing that knowledge or not. If he doesn’t practice the knowledge he has acquired from the teacher, he won’t be given the ijazah. The distinctiveness of the isnad system is not only the type of knowledge but also the practice that is transferred from generation to generation. The purpose of education is therefore to raise ‘al-insan al-kamil’, the clearest example of which is the Prophet ﷺ and his Noble Companions. The isnad system works in this manner. Until the advent of western influence, this is how it worked in the light of our own civilization.
Fiqh
In the Islamic civilization, fiqh was the method of thinking and the means for solving social problems. When speaking of fiqh, it is useful to see the definition provided by Imam Abu Hanifah. According to him, fiqh is knowing one’s rights and responsibilities. If we look at the definition provided by Imam Shafi, fiqh is reaching normative judgments based on detailed evidence. Imam al-Shafi’i explains fiqh in light of its methods, whereas Imam Abu Hanifah explains it in light of its outcome. Ultimately, both are referring to the same subject but from different perspectives.
In our time, we have two sciences to probe into human behavior. On one hand, there is fiqh developed by the Islamic civilization. On the other hand, there are the social sciences developed by Western civilization. In Islam, human behavior is examined through fiqh, whereas in the West it is through the social sciences. That is to say, the two civilizations have engendered two separate sciences to study human action and social relations.
Which scientific framework would be used for the assessment of human behavior? If analyzed in the vision of the Islamic civilization, it’ll be fiqh. If analyzed from the perspective of western civilization, it’ll be the social sciences. In the Islamic civilization, human behavior, family life, and the problems of social life are all solved using fiqh. This was the case until the beginning of the modern era.
In the modern era, fiqh was set aside in favor of the social sciences. Modern schools emerged which delivered education without isnad; the Islamic sciences were turned into academic subjects. This happened throughout the Islamic world. The state of Saudi Arabia is the most conservative one in the Muslim world. It happened there as well. The Western system of education has been brought in and education is offered without isnad. In Turkey too, fiqh is no longer seen as a “positive” science.
In fiqh, there is a principle that one ijtihad cannot rule out another. This is to say that if an ijtihad is reached following sound principles and methods, everyone must respect it. After applying the principles (usūl al-fiqh), different results may emerge. In today’s time, we again need to return to this pluralist methodology. This methodology was developed by Muslims in accordance with their own understanding of existence and knowledge.
The fatwas, rulings, ijtihad, thought and theories produced by means of usūl al-fiqh are all accepted as Islamic. The ones outside of usūl al-fiqh are not considered to be Islamic. Today, many methods imported from the West are being utilized in place of usūl al-fiqh. Using usūl al-fiqh, riba (interest) and zina (adultery) cannot be said to be halal. Irrespective of the scenario, this methodology ensures that an individual doesn’t operate out of its framework. If, however other methodologies are utilized, it may well be possible for a person to derive interpretations in line with one’s whims and desires.
To summarize, the aforementioned discussions lead us to the following conclusions.
Firstly, the model of the ideal human being (al-insan al-kamil) should once again be fixed as the goal of education.
Secondly, the one-to-one teacher-student relationship must again be developed based on adâb, the mass production model must end.
Thirdly, usūl al-fiqh needs to be revived again as a method of reasoning in all subjects.
Fourthly, in the research and resolution of social problems, the science of fiqh needs to be utilized instead of the Eurocentric materialist and secularist social sciences. This would require a paradigm shift.
In today’s times, while attempting to solve social problems, using the secularist social sciences creates complications. For example, from the perspective of the dominant economics today, interest-free economy is assumed to be impossible, the understanding being that without interest, economy will not progress. A Muslim wonders how he or she can proceed with this understanding. Take another example, the science of psychology. Freud posited sexual dissatisfaction as the root of all psychological disorders. In other words, a person may well commit fornication on the advice of a psychologist, in the hope of relief. How can this be acceptable to a Muslim? This isn’t science, it is an ideology.
Hence Cemil Meriç said, “Sociology is the West’s secular theology. We need to return to ourselves. To return to ourselves is to return to Ibn Khaldun.” Ibn Khaldun explained the purpose of fiqh as the following: the purpose of fiqh is to preserve civilization. When speaking of fiqh, Ibn Khaldun is alluding to Imam Abu Hanifah’s understanding. Such an understanding needs to be used again, to both examine human behavior and solve social problems.
Implementing the aforementioned points will of course not be easy. The civilization that went off-course needs to be brought on the right track again. These changes won’t become a reality immediately. At the very least however, it is necessary to work towards identifying the mistakes and to present the truth.
[1] Haqiqa is the word used in the original
Comments are closed.