Why are we so gullible?

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

I find it really frustrating sometimes that people refuse to be cynical or skeptical when it comes to religious edicts.

There is a dumbfounding subservience to prevailing dogmas or rulings and no independent thinking whatsoever. “Early Scholars” and their decisions or point of views are considered the epitome of factuality.

Consider science, where so many of the ‘Early Experts’ have been proven wrong and new findings made to benefit mankind just by keeping an open mind and not considering their work the be all and end all on the subject.

Add to it the fact that all superceded scientific rules and laws were in their time established by some kind of a scientific process and approved by peers and yet, as time goes on, further research enables all of us to learn something new and we get closer to the ‘truth’

The ‘Early Scholar’ in comparison had obviously fewer tools at his (you’ll be hard pressed to find female ‘early scholars’) disposal and lesser knowledge of the world he lived in. Their opinions were just that: ‘opinions’ and most of the times they went right down the sectarian divide or their school of thought, which again boiled down to following the opinion of another ‘Early Scholar’ preceding them.

Why is Religion deprived of a scientific style investigation? Why do we all
sit quietly regurgitating disparate opinions of 9th century ‘scholars’ as divine writ, shaping our lives and laws around them?

2

Are you talking about religious investigation or scientific investigation? Or scientific investigation of religious matters or vice versa?

3

the need to investigate scientifically.

4

:eek:

only today during the jumma khutba was I thinking ke how come there is now development in islamic sciences/thought?

how come one never hears of someone who is doing historic scientific research on islam…and actually tests the prevailing dogmas…?

how come everything in islamic literature is taken for granted?

if u look at other sciences and in other parts of the world, ull see that everything has undergone a development…and often a development towards more insight.

how come in islamic historical ‘sciences’ there is no development?

good thread PA :k:

5

Re: Why are we so gullible?

Assalam va Aliqum,

Wa sharrul Umoori Muhdathaatuhaa, Wa kulla Bid'atin dhaialah, wa kulla dhalatin fin-naar" Al-Hadith (Sahih Muslim). Translation of the above Hadith: Every innovation is a misguidance and every misguidance leads to Hell fire.

Bida’at (Innovation) and Ijtihaad are two separate things.

Ijtihad means "Expending one’s utmost effort in deriving secondary opinions from the four fundamental sources of Islamic law, namely Qur’aan, Sunnah, Ijma’ (The unanimous opinion of all the respected and rightly guided scholars on any Islamic issue), Qi’yaas (Analogy).”

Previous scholars who were proficient in the knowledge of Al-Quran, Sunnah and previous ijma researched and agreed upon one conclusion regarding a certain matter that is not defined or has no ruling in Islam. To follow those decisions becomes the reponsiblity of every Muslim and it's the way prescribed by Quran and Prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him.

In order for a person to decide what is right from wrong which is not directly or indirectly found in Quran, sunnah or Ijma, he or she must have knowledge of all (Quran Sunnah and previous Ijmas). There is no justification in re-thinking or re-deciding on something that had been already decided in previous Ijmas unless that Ijmaa is causing a negative impact on society in my opinion.

I am not aware of single Ijmaa that is causing a Muslim society not to grow or causing them not practice the laws of God properly. If you be more specific about certain rulings that are not quite clear to you. I will be more than glad to express my opinions on them or ask some one who can answer them. However, the doors of Ijtihaad are never close.

Sceince never conflicted with Islam. On the contrary, Islam was and is the best impact to Science itself. And Allah said in Quran repeatedly that there are signs in every creation, in the patterns of moon, in the earth rotaiting around the sun and in the sun that is traveling to pre-determined direction for those who thinks. Humans are very attracted and quick to decide that they are right yet God informed us in Quran that you might think something is good for you but it’s not. And who else would know better than the Creator.

I couldn’t answer your question properly because You haven’t provide specific incidence that leads you to your conclusion. Again, plz be more specific. Jazaak Allah

6

while in science, we might have more 'tools' than the early scholars, it is not the same in religion....

considering the main sources of Islam, Quran and Sunnah, as the major 'tools' in this filed....
the ppl who were present at the time Quran was revealed, and who understood its meaning by learning directly from the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), r supposedly better informed than those who followed them....

the information can only be diluted as time passes, u cant make it better....
and i u do try to hypothesise it, u cant confirm it by 'scientific research'....

unless u do have some gauges that measure 'imaan' more accuratley now....

7

But..

Why not find the first written words of Mohammad? Or do you know where they are?

Why not study the places Mohammad walked? Unless you know everyplace he has been?

8

But to answer your question about being gullible... Do you believe everything you hear?

Anything in print?

9

Re: Why are we so gullible?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
I find it really frustrating sometimes that people refuse to be cynical or skeptical when it comes to religious edicts.

There is a dumbfounding subservience to prevailing dogmas or rulings and no independent thinking whatsoever. "Early Scholars" and their decisions or point of views are considered the epitome of factuality.

Why is Religion deprived of a scientific style investigation? Why do we all
sit quietly regurgitating disparate opinions of 9th century 'scholars' as divine writ, shaping our lives and laws around them?
[/QUOTE]

Science and religion are somewhat in opposite corners. Religion refer to a higher being that we can but see/understand parts off. Science say everything can be explainable. Science look out and cannot see it's limitations. Religion tends to look in and realize not all can be understood.

New/independent thought should be accepted in religion, but with an "over-the-shoulder-look" at what has been discussed in the past. Never just throw away that which past wise men has done.

BTW> I like armughal's answer.

10

We are forgetting the fact that 'early scholars' seldom agreed. There are schools of thoughts and sects only because 'early scholars' disagreed in their understanding of issues surrounding the same religion.

Now one must start being cynical and practical and say, why can't we just examine what they disagreed on and form our own opinions today? Why do we have to start arguments from where they left off??

They were students of a religion and nothing more. God gifts whomever he wills with intellect and knowledge. Who knows today we may find people with better minds and increased knowledge who could possibly come up with better more plausible and widely agreed explanations for issues on which the sectarian divides occured previously.

Why doesn't the Muslim 'Ummah' give religious investigation a chance?? Why are 'early scholars' out of bounds of criticism or review?

11

PA, do you have a specific topic in mind? I will like to see your argument on any given specific topic that you believe should be proved scientifically.

12

Re: Re: Why are we so gullible?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Old Man: *

Science and religion are somewhat in opposite corners.

[/QUOTE]

ur starting point is wrong.....if u decide beforehand that science and religion cannot go hand in hand, then it will be futile.
In contrast, I'd rather think that science and religion are very well suited to go hand in hand.

I think that religion can give guidence in scientific research, and in the other way around science can try to find explanations of thing in religion which were thought of as 'unexplainabale' beforehand.

Isn't it interesting to notice that all great scientists/philosophers (in the western world) were also relatively 'more religious' than other persons of their time?

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
PA, do you have a specific topic in mind? I will like to see your argument on any given specific topic that you believe should be proved scientifically.
[/QUOTE]

Kaleem,

I purposely refrained from citing examples, cuz though they make the discussion easier, they make us all overlook the forest for the trees.

But still, I'd say let's start with the Qur'an... a document supposedly of divine nature inspired in a human being chosen as a Messenger. If one reads it, one gets the impression that it's interpretation and understanding is left upto the reader. However 'early scholars' have created a whole new religion which is based not only on what the Book commands but on opinions, actions and what not of whoever followed the religion.. thus creating the popular 'Shariah'.

Imagine, there being no 'early scholars'.. we'd all still be reading one Qur'an and trying to understand it.. who knows by now we'd have perfected our understanding of it without the need to divide into sects!

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *

Kaleem,

I purposely refrained from citing examples, cuz though they make the discussion easier, they make us all overlook the forest for the trees.

But still, I'd say let's start with the Qur'an... a document supposedly of divine nature inspired in a human being chosen as a Messenger. If one reads it, one gets the impression that it's interpretation and understanding is left upto the reader. However 'early scholars' have created a whole new religion which is based not only on what the Book commands but on opinions, actions and what not of whoever followed the religion.. thus creating the popular 'Shariah'.

Imagine, there being no 'early scholars'.. we'd all still be reading one Qur'an and trying to understand it.. who knows by now we'd have perfected our understanding of it without the need to divide into sects!
[/QUOTE]

Occured to me ...

Perhaps a millenum from today...

Scholars will be studying the interpretations of our peers.

<~~ Thinking that we should guide them positively.

15

quoting Dr. Shabbir Ahmed M.D. from his Book, Karbala: Fact or Fiction, Chapter 9, Page 44:

"Readers, we Muslims are a people with strange characteristics. We take pride in what we should be ashamed about! The scandal that should shame us is the so-called science of Names of Individuals. The mullah thumps his breast with the claim that Muslims have preserved the names of their five hundred thousand self-proclaimed scholars.

Imagine a game of basketball or volley ball in which five hundred thousand players are throwing the ball at each other without any net or umpire!

Dr. James Gibbs of Great Britain and Dr. Henry Springer of Austria have assailed the Muslim people over this spectacle. They say, these Muslims possess a living book but, sitting in their mosques, madrasahs and monasteries, they are throwing balls of obsolete history books at each other. These five hundred thousand phantom players are responsible for sectarianism amongst the Muslims.

Dr. Gibbs says that it is strange that Muslims have so far divided themselves into only 150 sects and not 500,000! If there can be 320 million Hindu Bhagwans, why cannot be 500,000 Muslim sects?"

I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. sahibaan.

16

Haven't figured out the focus of this discussion, but two points which have been wrongfully stated are:

1) muslims throw around books of obsolete history while ignoring the quran. this is not true at all.

2) we can not give religion an overhaul since islam has been chosen as the correct religion and no one is allowed to change the words of Allah.

17

Just adding one more thing. There is no restriction on any person to look at the proofs and derive their own ruling. If you consider yourself a mujtahid and can look at the proofs and derive a ruling (while also giving due respect to how the "early scholars" derived their rulings) i dont think there is anything against that.

18

The way I look at it, yes, we can go ahead and re-invent the wheel again and again and everyone else can do the same thing... or... we can make use of work of others who have invented the wheel and use the wheel and where we feel the answer doesn't make sense, then we can do our own research to come to a conclusion. Now our conclusion may turn out to be different or same as what the others had already concluded. This is not so much a question of bruised ego that after all this effort we got to the same place where someone else had guided us 700 years ago anyway, but its more a matter of personal satisfaction. There is nothing wrong with questioning long-held views as long as we have a roadmap on how to resolve the question and agree to disagree where we don't agree.

Plus, the aim of the whole thing is not to prove a point, but that we live successful and productive lives based on whatever we believe in. If as muslims we believe that there will be a day of judgement where we will be judged according to our deeds, and thus we should make every effort to be on the right path and do good deeds, then it makes sense that we will do that effort.

Now, everyone of us is not so suave or have the will, determination, knowledge, resources and time to research all these issues, so we take the easy way out and rely on someone who claims or has better knowledge. Then we basically tie our fate to him, that if he is right then we are right too. At the end of the day, each of us will be responsible for our own deeds.

19

Well phrased Faisal.

PA i have no idea as to why you believe that the majority of muslims dont give 2 cents worth of thought to their beliefs, and are stuck on following what their fore fathers believed.

20

PA,

here are some quotes from the early scholars.. i dont have much knowledge, and i cant quote every "early scholar", but i can assure you that no one puts aside the quran and fights over old history books.

Muhammad Ibnul Fadl said: I heard my grandfather say: I asked my father for permission to study under Qutaybah, so he said: First learn the Qur'aan and then I will give you permission. So I memorized the Qur'aan by heart. So he said to me: Remain until you have led the people in prayer (taraaweeh) with it. So I did so, then after the 'Eed he gave me permission, so I left for Marw.
Related by Imaam adh-Dhahabee in Tadhkiratul Huffaadh (2/722).

Imaam an-Nawawee said: So the first thing which he should begin with is the memorization of the mighty Qur'aan, which is the most important of the branches of knowledge. And the Salaf did not used to teach hadeeth or fiqh, except to one who had memorized the Qur'aan. So when he has memorized it, then let him beware of pre-occupying himself from it with hadeeth, or fiqh, or other things, to the extent that it leads him to forget anything from the Qur'aan, or makes that likely.
Al Majmoo' Sharhul Muhadhab (1/38).

Al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadee said: It is befitting for a student that he begins with the memorization of the Book of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic; since it is the greatest of the branches of knowledge, and that which should be placed first and given precedence.
Al Jaami' li Akhlaaqir Raawee wa Aadaabus Saami' (1/106).