In reading the Quran, one has to deal with various signs and symbols, which are arranged in such a way that they convey a certain meaning or message.
IKIM VIEWS by DR MOHD ZAIDI ISMAIL
Senior Fellow / Director, Centre for Science and Technology, Ikim
WE POINTED out in Ikim Views of Aug 28 that not only are all the individual entities and events which comprise the World of Nature considered by the Quran to be the ayats of Allah (that is, God’s signs and symbols), but the verses in the Quran are themselves so called, too.
This, we also mentioned, led many a scholar in the Islamic intellectual and scientific tradition to draw an analogy between the two, regarding the cosmos as a book in more or less the same manner as the Quran, the main difference being that the former is created whereas the latter is Revealed.
For those who subscribe to such an understanding, doing science essentially becomes attempts to read and interpret the Open Book of Nature correctly. And since the Author of the two books is one and the same, a scientist cannot but also be attentive to the Revealed Book in his very act of reading the Created Book.
In reading, one has to deal with the various signs and symbols, which are arranged in such a way that they convey a certain meaning or message.
Take a verse, for instance. A verse in the case of the Quran is composed of a number of meaningfully related words, each word in turn comprising a number of meaningfully related letters.
“A word as it really is,” as Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas explains in his Islam and The Philosophy of Science, “is a symbol, and to know it as it really is, is to know what it stands for, what it symbolises, what it means.
“If we were to regard a word as if it has an independent reality of its own then it would no longer be a sign or a symbol, as it is being made to point to itself, which is not what it really is.”
Suppose that a person, touring an area, comes across a warning written in red, “Beware of Rottweiler.” If he is reasonable enough, what one often expects him to do next is to pay heed to the message and leave the place, lest he encounter the Rottweiler.
But suppose that, instead of leaving the place, he spends his time pondering the very composition of the sentence, measuring the shape and size (length, width, diameter, etc.) of each letter and determining its colour and shade, then given the somewhat obvious context, his reason will surely be questioned at the very least.
It is clear therefore that a word, as a sign or a symbol, remains useful as long as it points to the meaning or message it is supposed to convey. Otherwise, one may spend one’s time scrutinising everything surrounding the word, yet miss its very raison d’etre.
Now, as we have stated at the onset, the individual entities and events which comprise the World of Nature are referred to in the Quran as God’s signs and symbols, just as its verses are so called.
Therefore, by way of analogy, as al-Attas succinctly explains, “a thing like a word is then in reality ultimately a sign or a symbol, and a sign or a symbol is something that is apparent and is inseparable from something else not equally apparent, in such wise that when the former is perceived, the other, which cannot be perceived and which is of one predicament as the former, is known.”
“So in like manner,” he argues: “In the study of nature, of anything, any object of knowledge in the world of created things, if the expression ‘as it really is’ is taken to mean its alleged independent reality, essentially and existentially, as if it were something ultimate and self-subsistent, then such study is devoid of real purpose, and the pursuit of knowledge becomes a deviation from the truth, which necessarily puts into question the validity of such knowledge.
“For, as it really is, a thing is other than what it is, and that ‘other’ is what it means.”
If one accepts such a comparison, one could then proceed to derive another case of similarities between the two books, as has been done by al-Attas in several of his writings.
The Quran speaks of its verses, or its signs and symbols, as partly comprising those that are clear and established (al-muhkamat), and partly comprising those that are obscure and ambiguous (al-mutashabihat).
By way of analogy, we could also infer that the Created Book, the entire phenomenal world, also comprises signs and symbols – which we call ‘things’ – that are clear and established in their meanings and those that are obscure and ambiguous.
Furthermore, if one is convinced that since the Author of the former book is both One (wahid) and Unique (Ahad) in the Absolute sense, one can therefore rightly infer that the book as a totality also reflects such a unity – being a unified system of signs and meanings – just like the latter book with its unity of message and teachings.
All this, if properly conceptualised and digested, will surely have far-reaching implications on the orientation and content of our educational system, particularly the science curricula.
IKIM VIEWS by DR MOHD ZAIDI ISMAIL
Senior Fellow / Director, Centre for Science and Technology, Ikim
WE POINTED out in Ikim Views of Aug 28 that not only are all the individual entities and events which comprise the World of Nature considered by the Quran to be the ayats of Allah (that is, God’s signs and symbols), but the verses in the Quran are themselves so called, too.
This, we also mentioned, led many a scholar in the Islamic intellectual and scientific tradition to draw an analogy between the two, regarding the cosmos as a book in more or less the same manner as the Quran, the main difference being that the former is created whereas the latter is Revealed.
For those who subscribe to such an understanding, doing science essentially becomes attempts to read and interpret the Open Book of Nature correctly. And since the Author of the two books is one and the same, a scientist cannot but also be attentive to the Revealed Book in his very act of reading the Created Book.
In reading, one has to deal with the various signs and symbols, which are arranged in such a way that they convey a certain meaning or message.
Take a verse, for instance. A verse in the case of the Quran is composed of a number of meaningfully related words, each word in turn comprising a number of meaningfully related letters.
“A word as it really is,” as Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas explains in his Islam and The Philosophy of Science, “is a symbol, and to know it as it really is, is to know what it stands for, what it symbolises, what it means.
“If we were to regard a word as if it has an independent reality of its own then it would no longer be a sign or a symbol, as it is being made to point to itself, which is not what it really is.”
Suppose that a person, touring an area, comes across a warning written in red, “Beware of Rottweiler.” If he is reasonable enough, what one often expects him to do next is to pay heed to the message and leave the place, lest he encounter the Rottweiler.
But suppose that, instead of leaving the place, he spends his time pondering the very composition of the sentence, measuring the shape and size (length, width, diameter, etc.) of each letter and determining its colour and shade, then given the somewhat obvious context, his reason will surely be questioned at the very least.
It is clear therefore that a word, as a sign or a symbol, remains useful as long as it points to the meaning or message it is supposed to convey. Otherwise, one may spend one’s time scrutinising everything surrounding the word, yet miss its very raison d’etre.
Now, as we have stated at the onset, the individual entities and events which comprise the World of Nature are referred to in the Quran as God’s signs and symbols, just as its verses are so called.
Therefore, by way of analogy, as al-Attas succinctly explains, “a thing like a word is then in reality ultimately a sign or a symbol, and a sign or a symbol is something that is apparent and is inseparable from something else not equally apparent, in such wise that when the former is perceived, the other, which cannot be perceived and which is of one predicament as the former, is known.”
“So in like manner,” he argues: “In the study of nature, of anything, any object of knowledge in the world of created things, if the expression ‘as it really is’ is taken to mean its alleged independent reality, essentially and existentially, as if it were something ultimate and self-subsistent, then such study is devoid of real purpose, and the pursuit of knowledge becomes a deviation from the truth, which necessarily puts into question the validity of such knowledge.
“For, as it really is, a thing is other than what it is, and that ‘other’ is what it means.”
If one accepts such a comparison, one could then proceed to derive another case of similarities between the two books, as has been done by al-Attas in several of his writings.
The Quran speaks of its verses, or its signs and symbols, as partly comprising those that are clear and established (al-muhkamat), and partly comprising those that are obscure and ambiguous (al-mutashabihat).
By way of analogy, we could also infer that the Created Book, the entire phenomenal world, also comprises signs and symbols – which we call ‘things’ – that are clear and established in their meanings and those that are obscure and ambiguous.
Furthermore, if one is convinced that since the Author of the former book is both One (wahid) and Unique (Ahad) in the Absolute sense, one can therefore rightly infer that the book as a totality also reflects such a unity – being a unified system of signs and meanings – just like the latter book with its unity of message and teachings.
All this, if properly conceptualised and digested, will surely have far-reaching implications on the orientation and content of our educational system, particularly the science curricula.
No comments:
Post a Comment