Ikiwa mwanadamu ni mtunga sheria, kama Magharibi inavyodai, basi yeye hutunga sheria vipi? Hupata vipi maarifa yake ya kibinadamu? Kigezo cha kupima uhalisia ni kipi? Magharibi iliuliza maswali ya kimbinu, yanayohusiana na njia yenye tija ya kufikiri, baada ya kuiondoa dini katika maisha, kama chanzo cha maarifa na kama mbinu. Jibu la Magharibi lilidhibitiwa ndani ya mafundisho mawili: fundisho la Kiakili (Rationalism) na fundisho la Kiuzoefu (Empiricism). Fundisho la Kiakili linadai kwamba fikra hutangulia uhalisia. Kwa hiyo linategemea akili kama chanzo cha maarifa na si hisi. Fundisho hilo linaona kwamba akili, iwe kwa angavu, kwa hoja za kimantiki au kupitia maarifa ya asili, ndiyo kipimo cha uhakika na uhalisia, si uzoefu wala majaribio. Kwa upande wa fundisho la Kiuzoefu, linaona kwamba hisi ndiyo chanzo pekee cha kuzalisha mawazo. Pia linadai kwamba maarifa yote ya kibinadamu yaliyotangulia pia yalipatikana kupitia majaribio na hisi, “a posteriori” (Kilatini: “kutoka kwa hiki cha mwisho”), badala ya “a priori.” Kulingana na Uzoefu (Empiricism), mbinu ya kisayansi ya majaribio iliundwa. Neno empiricism linatokana na neno la Kigiriki cha kale empeiria, “uzoefu,” likionyesha kutegemea kwake majaribio kama kipimo cha uhalisia na maarifa. Kutokana na mtazamo wa kiuzoefu, falsafa kadhaa ziliibuka ambazo ziliathiri mawazo yanayohusiana na mifumo ya jamii katika Magharibi. Kutokana na mtazamo huo wa kiuzoefu, zikaibuka falsafa za Umaada (materialism), Utumiaji (utilitarianism), Uchanya (positivism), Upragmatiki (pragmatism) na nyinginezo.

If man is to be the legislator, as the West asserts, then how does he legislate? How does he derive his human knowledge? What is the criterion to measure reality? The West asked methodological questions, related to the productive way of thinking, after it removed religion from life, both as a source of knowledge and method. The West’s answer was restricted to two doctrines: the Rationalist doctrine and the Empirical doctrine. The Rationalist doctrine asserts that thinking is precedent over reality. So it depends on reason, as a source of knowledge and not the senses. The doctrine views that reason, whether by intuition or deduction or through innate knowledge, is a measure of certainty and reality, not experience or experimentation. As for the Empirical doctrine, it views that sensation is the only source to generate thoughts. It also asserts that all precedent human knowledge was also obtained through experimentation and sensation, “a posteriori” (Latin: “from the latter”) rather than “a priori.” In accordance with Empiricism, a scientific experimental method was formed. The word empiricism is derived from the ancient Greek word empeiria, “experience,” indicating its dependency on experimentation as a measure of reality and knowledge. From the empirical point of view, several philosophies emerged that influenced the thoughts related to systems of the society in the West. From this empirical view, the philosophies of materialism, utilitarianism, positivism, pragmatism and others emerged.

Kwa kuzingatia mafanikio na ugunduzi uliofanywa kwa mbinu ya kisayansi ya majaribio, ambayo ilichangia Renaissance ya Magharibi kimaada, Magharibi ilipitisha mbinu hii kama njia ya kufikiri. Ilitukuzwa hadi kiwango cha utakatifu, ikifanywa kuwa msingi pekee wa kufikiri na kipimo cha uhalisia. Magharibi ilipa fikra za kisayansi utawala katika mambo yote, ikiijumlisha kwa utafiti wote hadi kufikia kiwango cha baadhi ya maarifa yanayohusu hata mwanadamu, jamii na mahusiano yake, kufanywa kwa mujibu wa mbinu hii ya kisayansi ya majaribio, ikitegemea Udeterminism uliohusishwa na mekaniki ya Newton. Kwa kuibuka kwa nadharia ya uhusiano, nadharia ya quantum, ugunduzi usio wa kawaida na mambo mengine, maswali yaliibuliwa dhidi ya uhakika wa sayansi, pamoja na udeterminism. Hili lilitengeneza njia kwa mapinduzi ya kupinga sayansi, mbinu ya majaribio na udeterminism, kuanzia katikati ya karne ya ishirini. Hivyo baadhi ya wanafikra wa Magharibi walijaribu kukanusha sayansi na kushindwa kwake kubwa, hasa kuhusu mtazamo wake wa mwanadamu kama jambo la asili, la kimaada. Hata hivyo, sayansi imebaki kuwa na nguvu, ikiendelea kutawala maarifa katika Magharibi. Mbinu ya kisayansi imebaki kama kipimo cha kufikiri, kama kigezo cha ukosoaji na kama msingi wa maarifa. Hivyo, kwa kurejelea fikra za kisayansi au fikra za kiukosoaji, Magharibi inamaanisha mbinu ya kisayansi ya majaribio pekee.

Considering the achievements and discoveries made by the scientific empirical method, that contributed to the Renaissance of the Western materially, the West adopted this method as a method of thinking. It was revered to the level of sanctity, making it the only basis of thinking and the measure of reality. The West gave scientific thinking dominance in all matters, generalizing for all research to the extent that some of the knowledge related to even man, society and its relations, is carried out according to this empirical scientific method, based on Determinism associated with Newtonian mechanics. With the emergence of the theory of relativity, quantum theory, unconventional discoveries and other matters, questions were raised against the certainty of science, as well as determinism. This paved the way for a counter-revolution against science, empirical method and determinism, from the middle of the twentieth century. So some of the Western thinkers attempted to refute science and its prominent failures, particularly with regards to its view of man as a natural, material phenomenon. Nevertheless, science has remained dominant, retaining dominance over knowledge in the West. The scientific method has remained as a measure of thinking, as a criterion for criticism and as a basis of knowledge. Thus by referring to scientific thinking or critical thinking, the West means the empirical scientific method alone.

Kwa kweli, nadharia ya Magharibi ya sayansi si sahihi kwa mambo mawili: si sahihi kwa upande wa kuwa maarifa yenyewe, na pia si sahihi kwa upande wa kuchukuliwa kama msingi wa fikra.

In fact, the Western theory of science is invalid in two aspects: it is invalid from the aspect of it being a knowledge in itself. Also it is invalid from the aspect of its consideration as the basis of thinking.

Kuhusu upande wa kuichukulia sayansi kama maarifa yenyewe, hilo linaonekana katika mtazamo wa Magharibi. Sayansi si njia tu, bali ni maarifa yenye uhakika, kama ufahamu wa mwisho wa mwanadamu. Auguste Comte (alifariki 1857), mwanzilishi wa mafundisho ya positivism, alitoa maelezo kuhusu mageuzi ya jamii, akipendekeza kwamba jamii hupitia awamu tatu katika harakati zake za kutafuta ukweli kulingana na sheria ya jumla ya hatua tatu. Hatua za Comte zilikuwa (1) hatua ya kitheolojia, (2) hatua ya kimetafizikia, na (3) hatua ya positivity, pia inayojulikana kama hatua ya kisayansi.

As for the aspect of considering science as knowledge itself, it is found to be in the perception of the West. Science is not just a method but guaranteed knowledge, as an ultimate human comprehension. Auguste Comte (died 1857), the founder of the doctrine of positivism, offered an account of social evolution, proposing that society undergoes three phases in its quest for the truth according to a general law of three stages. Comte’s stages were (1) the theological stage, (2) the metaphysical stage, and (3) the positivity stage, also known as the scientific stage.

Wakati wa hatua ya kitheolojia, binadamu alikuwa akieleza matukio ya kimaumbile kwa njia ya nguvu zisizo za kawaida, zilizowakilishwa na miungu. Wakati wa hatua ya kimetafizikia, hatua ya uchunguzi, binadamu alianza kufikiri na kuhoji, akihoji mamlaka na dini, kuhusu matukio ya kimaumbile. Wakati wa hatua ya kipozitivi, hatua ya kisayansi, binadamu hujifunza kuhusu maumbile kwa mujibu wa mbinu ya kimajaribio. Wanaeleza maumbile kupitia mbinu hii, wakiunda maarifa chanya katika namna za kisayansi na za kuelezea. Hii inamwezesha mwanadamu kutawala maumbile, kuyadhibiti na kuyatumia kwa madhumuni yake, kama alivyodai Auguste Comte. Hata hivyo, sayansi imeshindwa vibaya, licha ya madai na utetezi wake. Sayansi haikumpa mwanadamu maarifa kamili na jumuishi kuhusu uwepo wake, nafasi yake na lengo lake. Badala yake, ilimpa tu maarifa ya kimaada yaliyozaa ustaarabu wa viwanda na wa baada ya viwanda. Inajulikana kwa maelezo yake ya kina ya kiubora na kiidadi ya dunia, ikichangia binadamu kutumia maumbile.

During the theological stage, humans used to explain natural phenomena by way of supernatural powers, represented by gods. During the metaphysical stage, the stage of the investigation, humans started reasoning and questioning, questioning authority and religion, regarding natural phenomena. During the positivity stage, the scientific stage, humans learn regarding nature according to the empirical method. They explain nature through this method, formulating the positive knowledge in the scientific and descriptive forms. This enables man to dominate nature, controlling it and utilizing it for his purpose, as Auguste Comte claimed. However, science has failed miserably, regardless of claims and advocacy. Science did not provide man with comprehensive and inclusive knowledge about his existence, his role and objective. Instead, it only provided him materialistic knowledge that generated the industrial and post-industrial civilization. It is distinguished by its in-depth qualitative and quantitative explanation of the world, contributing to human beings utilizing nature.

Hata hivyo, sayansi imemweka mwanadamu mbali na kujijua mwenyewe, kuelewa kiini cha ubinadamu wake, na imemvuruga asiweze kuelewa kuwepo kwake na kuwa kwake. Hii ni kwa sababu sayansi inachukulia utafutaji wa mwanadamu wa lengo lake la kuwepo pamoja na ukweli wa hatima yake kuwa ni utafiti wa kifalsafa tu. Sayansi inaupeleka utafutaji huu katika eneo la cosmolojia, ontolojia na metafizikia. Sayansi inashikilia kuwa maarifa yanayoonekana kuhusu uhalisia wa kimaada yanapita mipaka, hivyo utafutaji huu hauwezi kufikia hitimisho, na hakuna faida katika kuufanyia utafiti. Kwa hiyo asili ya sayansi ni ya kuelezea, inayofafanua dunia kwa sifa na kwa kiasi. Kwa hiyo, sayansi iko karibu zaidi na maelezo kuliko tafsiri, kwa kuwa tafsiri inahusisha mambo yaliyo nje ya maelezo. Tafsiri (tafseer) ni utafiti wa sababu za kuwepo kwa matukio na lengo lake. Maelezo ya kisayansi hayampi mwanadamu ufafanuzi wa uhalisia wake. Hii ni kwa sababu sayansi haijali kueleza lengo. Inachambua tu dunia kwa maana ya sifa na kiasi. Inamsaidia binadamu kuelewa dunia kwa kiwango cha maelezo tu. Hata hivyo, haimpi binadamu kanuni za mwenendo wala dhana kuhusu kusudi. Bila kujali upana wake, maarifa yanayotolewa na sayansi ni maarifa ya sehemu tu, yanayohusu sehemu ya kuwepo kwa mwanadamu na ulimwengu wake. Sayansi haijumuishi matukio yote ya maisha yake wala vipengele vyote vya kuwepo kwake. Allah (SWT) anasema,

However, science has kept man away from knowing himself, comprehending the essence of his humanity and distracting him from comprehending his being and his becoming. This is because science considers the search of man for both his objective in existence and the reality of his destiny, as mere philosophical research. Science relegates this search to the realm of cosmology, ontology and metaphysics. Science maintains that tangible knowledge of material reality transcends and so this search cannot be concluded, so there is no use in researching. Thus the nature of science is of a descriptive nature, defining the world qualitatively and quantitatively. Therefore, science is closer to description than interpretation, as interpretation entails matters beyond description. Interpretation (tafseer) is the study of causes of existence of phenomena and its objective. Description by science does not provide man with the explanation of his reality. This is because science disregards explaining the objective. It only analyzes the world in both qualitative and quantitative senses. It only helps humankind to understand the world in terms of its description. However, it does not provide humankind principles for conduct or concepts regarding purpose. Regardless of its expanse, the knowledge provided by science is only a partial knowledge, related to a part of man’s existence and his world. Science does not encompass all the phenomena of his life and the aspects of his existence. Allah (swt) says,

"Wanajua yaliyo dhahiri katika maisha ya dunia, lakini wao, kuhusu Akhera, ni wasiojali." [TMQ Surat Ar-Rum 30:7], Kuna maswali mengi ambayo sayansi imeshindwa kuyajibu. Muhimu kabisa kati yao ni yale yanayohusu kwa nini? Kwa nini binadamu yupo? Kwa nini Ulimwengu upo? Kwa nini uhai upo? Haya yote ni maswali ya msingi yanayohusiana na mwanadamu na maisha yake. Mwanadamu hawezi kupumzika wala kufanya maamuzi, isipokuwa anapopata majibu yake, iwe majibu hayo ni sahihi au si sahihi.

“They know what is apparent of the worldly life, but they, of the Hereafter, are unaware.” [TMQ Surah Ar-Rum 30:7], There are many questions which science is unable to answer. The most important of them are regarding why? Why do humans exist? Why does the Universe exist? Why does life exist? These are all crucial questions related to man and his life. Man can neither rest nor make decisions, unless he finds the answers for them, whether the answers are valid or invalid.

Kwa mtazamo huu, mwandishi na mwanasiasa wa Kifaransa Andre Malraux (alifariki 1976) aliandika riwaya ya *Man's Fate* (kwa Kifaransa: *La Condition humaine*, "Hali ya Mwanadamu"), ambayo inaonyesha kwa undani kutowezekana kwa kupata maana ya kudumu au ubinadamu, ikiwa ni pamoja na kauli isemayo: "Mtu anaweza kuwasiliana hata na kifo .... Ni jambo gumu sana, lakini labda hiyo ndiyo maana ya maisha ..." Mbali na hayo, sifa za mbinu ya kisayansi, kama wanavyosema Wamagharibi, ni maendeleo endelevu na kuongezeka kwa maarifa. Maana yake ni kwamba maarifa yote ya kisayansi yanakabiliwa na maendeleo, mabadiliko, marekebisho na mabadiliko. Hata hivyo, hii pia inamaanisha kwamba sayansi haitoi maarifa ya mwisho. Hivyo haiwezekani kwa mwanadamu kujenga maisha yake na mifumo yake juu ya msingi huu. Kwa hiyo si sahihi kusema kwamba sayansi ni maarifa yanayoweka maana ya maisha, yanayoeleza uhalisia wa kuwepo kwa binadamu.

In this respect, the French politician and writer Andre Malraux (died 1976) wrote the novel Man's Fate (French: La Condition humaine, The Human Condition'), which dramatizes the impossibility of finding permanent meaning or humanity, including the remark, “One can communicate even with death .... It’s most difficult, but perhaps that is the meaning of life ..." In addition to this, the traits of scientific method, as Westerners say, are progressivism and proliferation. The implication of this is that all the scientific knowledge is subject to development, evolution, adjustment and change. However, this also means that science does not provide ultimate knowledge. Thus it is not possible for a man to build his life and his systems upon this basis. It is thus wrong to say that science is a knowledge that establishes the meaning of life, explaining the reality of human existence.

Kuhusu kipengele cha pili, ikizingatiwa mbinu ya kisayansi kama msingi wa fikra, mbinu yake imepotoka. Upotovu wake unatokana na vipengele kadhaa, baadhi yake ni:

As for second the aspect, considering scientific method as a basis of thinking, its methodology is corrupted. Its corruption is from several aspects, some of which are:

Kwanza: Mbinu ya kisayansi katika kupata maarifa ni mbinu maalum ya utafiti, inayofikia maarifa ya kweli kuhusu somo linalochunguzwa. Inategemea hatua maalum: Uchunguzi (Observation), Uingizaji (Induction, yaani kuunda dhana tete), Upunguzaji (Deduction, yaani kuunda majaribio), Upimaji (Testing, yaani ukusanyaji wa data) na Tathmini (Evaluation, yaani uchambuzi wa data na kuunda nadharia). Hizi ndizo hatua za mbinu ya kisayansi ya kawaida. Kuna mijadala miongoni mwa wanafikra wa Magharibi kuhusu ni ipi inatangulia, uchunguzi au dhana, na kinyume chake. Kwa hiyo Wamagharibi hutofautisha mbinu ya uingizaji, ambapo kundi la uchunguzi huunganishwa ili kupata kanuni ya jumla, na mbinu ya upunguzaji, ambayo ni mchakato wa kutoa hoja kutoka kwenye kauli moja au zaidi (majengo) ili kufikia hitimisho la kimantiki. Hata hivyo, mbinu ya kisayansi huamua sehemu kubwa ya sayansi asilia, kama fizikia, kemia na biolojia, pamoja na sayansi jamii, ikiwemo sosholojia, sayansi ya usimamizi, sayansi ya siasa, saikolojia na historia.

First: Scientific method in arriving at knowledge is the specific method of research, achieving true knowledge of a subject that is researched. It is based on specific steps: Observation, Induction (formulation of hypotheses), Deduction (experiment formulation), Testing (data collection) and Evaluation (data analysis and theory formulation). These are the steps of the classical scientific method. There are debates amongst the Western thinkers about the precedence of observation over hypothesis and vice versa. So the Westerners distinguish the inductive method, body of observations is synthesized to come up with a general principle, from the deductive method, the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logical conclusion. Nonetheless the scientific method determines much of natural science, such as physics, chemistry and biology, as well as social science, including sociology, management science, political science, psychology and history.

Mbinu inayoitwa njia ya kisayansi haifai kuwa msingi wa kufikiri kwa binadamu. Hii ni kwa sababu kuweka msingi wa kufikiri kwa wanadamu wote kunahitaji kwamba iwe inapatikana kwa binadamu wote, ili wote waweze kujenga msingi wa fikra zao. Hata hivyo, njia ya kisayansi kwa kweli ni mbinu tata inayofungwa na sheria na masharti maalum, ambayo si binadamu wote wanaoweza kuifuata au kuitimiza. Kwa uhalisia, fikra za kisayansi zinaweza kuwa msingi wa kufikiri kwa watu fulani na makundi maalum, lakini si kwa umma wa watu wote. Ikiwa maarifa au uhalisia ni haki ya watu wote, basi fikra lazima ziwe zinapatikana kwa msingi wa jumla, ili kila mtu aweze kujenga juu yake. Hali hii haipo katika njia ya kisayansi. Kuibuka kwa njia ya kisayansi Magharibi na umashuhuri wake katika jamii vyote vilitokana na mwelekeo wa kimapinduzi wa kukosoa uliokataa maarifa ya kanisa. Kukataliwa huku kulitokana na ukweli kwamba Kanisa na makasisi walinyakua uhuru wa mtu binafsi wa kujadili na kukosoa, wakimnyima haki ya kukubali au kukataa kwa hiari yake.

The method called the scientific method is not fit to be a basis of thinking for man. This is because laying a basis of thinking for humankind necessitates that it must be accessible to all of humanity, so that they can all build a foundation for their thinking. However, the scientific method is in fact a complicated method that is subject to specific laws and conditions, which not all humans can either adhere to or fulfill. Realistically, scientific thinking can be a basis of thinking for particular people and factions, but not for the general masses. If knowledge or reality is the right of all the people, thinking must be made accessible upon a general basis, for everyone to build upon. This is not the case in the scientific method. The emergence of the scientific method in the West and its societal prominence were both based on a revolutionary critical trend that rejected ecclesiastical knowledge. The rejection was because the Church and clergy confiscated individual freedom for discussion and criticism, depriving the right to accept or reject by volition.

Zaidi, kwa kufanya sayansi kuwa msingi wa fikra katika Magharibi, ilichukua nafasi ya Kanisa kama mamlaka tukufu ambayo lazima isikilizwe na kutiiwa. Yale ambayo sayansi ilitoa kama maelezo ya ulimwengu na ya maisha, ingawa hayapatikani kwa kila mtu kuyatengeneza na kuyaelewa, yakawa ni wajibu kwa kila mtu kuyatii. Hii ni licha ya ukweli kwamba ni dhana tu ambazo hazijafikia kiwango cha maarifa yenye uhakika. Hata pale maarifa ya kisayansi yanapothibitishwa, hayawezi kuchukuliwa kuwa maarifa ya mwisho, kwa kuwa daima yako chini ya masahihisho, marekebisho na mabadiliko. Hivyo ndivyo fikra za Magharibi zilivyogeuka kutoka utiifu kwa Kanisa kwenda utiifu wa upofu na kufuata sayansi. Zaidi ya hayo, baadhi yao wanaichukulia sayansi kuwa dini, kwa mfano kundi la Scientology. Sayansi haina jibu la mwisho kuhusu suala la kuwepo kwa binadamu. Kwa hiyo sayansi, ambayo ilikusudiwa kumkomboa mwanadamu katika Magharibi, yenyewe ikawa pingu.

Moreover, by making science as a basis of thinking in the West, it displaced the Church as a sublime authority that must be heeded and complied. What was provided by science as explanations for the universe and life, even though they are not accessible for all to formulate and comprehend, became obliged upon everyone to submit to. This is even though they are mere hypotheses that have not reached the level of certain knowledge. Even when scientific knowledge is proved, it cannot be considered as ultimate knowledge, for it is always subject to correction, amendment and evolution. This was how the Western thinking turned from submission to the Church to the blind submission and following of science. Moreover, some of them consider science as a religion, with the example of the Scientology cult. Science does not possess the ultimate answer related to the issue of human existence. So, science, which was intended to emancipate man in the West, itself became a shackle.

Pili: Njia ya kisayansi inategemea majaribio. Inawezekana tu kutafiti vitu vinavyoonekana na kuhisika kwa hisia. Haina nafasi ndani ya eneo la mawazo au utafiti unaohusiana na kufikiri. Kuhusu jinsi Magharibi inavyoiona njia ya kisayansi kuwa inaweza kutumika kwa maarifa yote na nyanja zote za utafiti wa binadamu, huo ni kuiga na kufuata njia ya msingi ya kufikiri yenyewe. Yapo madai ya Wamagharibi wanaokiri kwamba njia ya kiuzoefu haiwezi kutumika kwa maarifa yote ya binadamu. Wanatoa mfano kwamba hisia na mihemko ya binadamu haziwezi kuchunguzwa kwa mtazamo wa data za kiuzoefu. Hii ni kwa sababu si vitu vinavyoonekana ambavyo vinaweza kufanyiwa majaribio ya kisayansi. Mahusiano ya kibinadamu yanayounda jamii, pamoja na tofauti zake mahususi, pia hayawezi kuchunguzwa kwa njia za kiuzoefu zinazotegemea vipimo vya maabara.

Second: The scientific method is based on the basis of experimentation. It is only possible to research materials that are tangibly sensorial. It has no place within the realm of thoughts or research related to thinking. As for what the West sees of generalizing the scientific method to all the knowledge and all fields of human research, it is by emulation and imitation of the fundamental method of thinking itself. There are Westerners who concede that the empirical method cannot be applied to all human knowledge. They cite that human emotions and sensations cannot be studied from the empirical data perspective. This is because they are not tangible materials that can be subjected to scientific experimentation. Human relationships that shape the society, with specific variations, also cannot be studied according to empirical methods, based on laboratory testing.

Tatu: Mbinu ya kisayansi haitoi matokeo ya uhakika kabisa. Badala yake, ni mbinu isiyo na uhakika na inayokabiliwa na makosa. Hili ni jambo lililoonekana na kukubaliwa katika utafiti wa kisayansi. Kwa hiyo, maarifa ya kisayansi yanaelezwa kuwa ya kiuwezekano na yanayoendelea kukua. Fikra za kisayansi zinakabiliwa na mabadiliko, maendeleo na kubadilika. Hivyo fikra za kisayansi si za uhakika. Kwa mantiki hiyo, mbinu ya kisayansi haifai kuwa msingi wa fikra za binadamu, ambao mtu anaweza kujenga uwepo wake juu yake na kuufanya msingi wa maisha yake. Hii ni kwa sababu haitoi ukweli thabiti wala haitoi matokeo ya mwisho kuhusu kuwepo kwa vitu, sifa zao na asili zao. Haitoi hata mbinu ya msingi ya kufikiri. Ikiwa mbinu ya kisayansi itachukuliwa kama msingi wa fikra, itasababisha kupunguzwa kwa dhana ya uwepo wa mwanadamu, na kupotea kwa maana ya maisha. Hili litasababisha ukungu katika kuelewa kiini cha kuwepo na mkanganyiko katika ufahamu wa mwanadamu kuhusu nafsi yake, lengo lake na nafasi yake maishani. Hili ndilo jambo litakalomtikisa mwanadamu, likimfanya kuwa kiumbe tu kisicho na maana. Kwa kifupi, ingawa mbinu ya kisayansi ina faida zake na mwanadamu anaihitaji, haifai kuwa msingi wa fikra. Hata hivyo, inafaa kwa sayansi za kiuzoefu na baadhi ya nyanja za maarifa ambazo zinaweza kupimwa maabara.

Thirdly: The scientific method is not of definitive results. Instead, it is indefinite and subject to error. This is the matter observed and agreed upon in scientific research. Therefore, scientific knowledge is described as probabilistic and developing knowledge. Scientific thinking is subjected to evolution, development and change. Thus scientific thinking is not certain. Accordingly, the scientific method is not fit as a basis for human thinking, which man can establish his existence upon and adopt as the basis of his life. This is because it neither provides stable facts nor does it give ultimate results about the existence of things, their characteristics and their essences. It doesn't even provide a fundamental method of thinking. If the scientific method is taken as the basis of thinking, it will lead to the dilution of the concept of human existence, losing the meaning of life. This will result in obscurity in comprehending the essence of existence and confusion within man’s awareness of himself, his objective and his role in life. This is the matter that would shake man, making him a mere absurd being. In short, though the scientific method has its advantages and is needed by man, it is not fit to be a basis of thinking. This is even whilst it is appropriate for empirical sciences and some of the fields of knowledge that can be subjected to laboratory testing.

Njia sahihi ambayo inapaswa kuchukuliwa kama msingi wa kufikiri, na kuifanya kuwa hakimu wa kuhukumu mambo na masuala, ni njia ya kufikiri ya kiakili. Ikiwa njia ya kiakili inatumiwa ipasavyo kwa kupitisha uhalisia unaohisiwa kupitia hisia hadi kwenye ubongo, pamoja na uwepo wa taarifa zilizotangulia (ambazo si maoni ya awali wala ya baadaye), hii itaufasiri uhalisia, kwa kuwa inatoa matokeo sahihi. Hisia haziwezi kutenganishwa na kufikiri, tofauti na kile baadhi ya wanafikra wa Magharibi wanachodai. Taarifa zilizotangulia si maoni yaliyoshikiliwa awali, kama wanavyodai baadhi ya wanafikra wa Magharibi. Taarifa zilizotangulia ni kipengele cha lazima kinachohitajika kwa kufikiri. Njia ya kiakili, iwe imefafanuliwa kwa usahihi au la, ndiyo njia ambayo mwanadamu hutenda kwayo ili kufikiri kama binadamu.

The correct method that must be taken as a basis of thinking, making it an arbitrator to judge on things and matters, is the rational method of thinking. If the rational method is utilized correctly by transmitting the sensed reality through sensations to the brain with the presence of previous information (which is neither previous nor subsequent opinion), this will interpret the reality, as it gives the correct results. Sensation is inseparable from thinking, contrary to what some Western thinkers assert. Previous information is not the previously held opinions, as asserted by some Western thinkers. Previous information is the necessary element required for thinking. The rational method, whether it is defined correctly or not, is the method upon which man acts to think as a human,

kuhukumu juu ya mambo, kuelewa uwepo wake, uhalisia wake na sifa zake. Ni mbinu ya kufikiri inayopatikana kwa watu wote, ambayo wanadamu, bila kujali kiwango chao cha elimu, huitumia kiotomatiki katika kuelewa kwao, kufahamu kwao na katika kutoa hukumu zao. Mbinu ya kiakili inafaa kwa matawi yote ya maarifa na nyanja zote za utafiti. Hivyo inafaa kwa sayansi asilia pamoja na sayansi ya jamii. Zaidi ya hayo, ina sifa mbili bainifu ambazo hazipatikani katika mbinu ya kisayansi. Mbinu ya kiakili inatofautishwa kwa uwezo wake wa kuzalisha mawazo mapya, tofauti na mbinu ya kisayansi, ambayo inatofautishwa kwa uwezo wa ugunduzi na hitimisho. Hii ni kwa sababu mbinu ya kisayansi huonyesha yaliyopo na haitoi yasiyokuwepo. Imejengwa juu ya yaliyopo na haizalishi yasiyokuwepo. Hivyo mbinu ya kisayansi haizalishi mawazo mapya. Kuhusu sifa ya pili bainifu ya mbinu ya kiakili, ni uwezo wa kutoa matokeo yenye uhakika kuhusu uwepo wa mambo. Inampa mwanadamu ukweli thabiti na wa uhakika wa kuelewa maana ya maisha yake, tofauti na mbinu ya kisayansi ambayo ina asili ya kubahatisha. Mbinu ya kisayansi haimpi mwanadamu chochote isipokuwa dhana, zenye uwezekano wa kuwa na makosa.

judging upon things, comprehending their existence, reality and characteristics. It is the method of thinking that is accessible to all people, which humans, regardless of their educational level, automatically adopt in their understandings, comprehensions and in passing their udgments. The rational method is suitable for all the branches of knowledge and research fields. Thus it is suitable for natural science as well as social science. Moreover, it has two distinguishing features that are not found in the scientific method. The rational method is distinguished by its ability to generate new ideas, unlike the scientific method, which is characterized by the capacity of discovery and conclusion. This is because the scientific method reveals the existing and it does not offer the non-existent. It is built upon the existing and does not generate the non-existent. Thus the scientific method does not generate new ideas. As for the second distinguishing feature of the rational method, it is the ability of providing definitive results about the existence of things. It provides man with decisive and definitive facts to comprehend the meaning of his life, unlike the scientific method which has a probabilistic nature. The scientific method does not provide man anything but speculations, having the possibility of error.

Swali linaweza kuulizwa: je, inawezekanaje kufanya njia ya kiakili ya kufikiri kuwa fikra ya msingi, ilhali ilishathibitishwa hapo awali kwamba akili ('aql) ni dhaifu, yenye upungufu na yenye mipaka, hivyo haiwezi kufafanua lipi ni jema (khair) au baya (sharr), na lipi ni la kupendeza (hassan) au la kuchukiza (qabeeh)? Au inawezekanaje fikra ya kiakili kuwa fikra ya msingi kwa binadamu, ilhali baadaye inasemwa kuwa kuna Nguvu nyingine isiyo akili inayomwamulia mwanadamu lipi linamletea manufaa na lipi linamzuia na madhara? Jibu ni kwamba: fikra ya kiakili yenyewe ndiyo msingi wa kuthibitisha Nguvu kama hiyo inayoamua kwa mwanadamu lipi ni jema au baya, lipi ni la kupendeza au la kuchukiza. Hivyo, akili inathibitisha kwamba kuna Muumba nyuma ya ulimwengu, mwanadamu na uhai, aliyeviumba vyote, nao ni Allah (SWT). Akili pia inathibitisha kwamba mwanadamu ni kiumbe asiyeweza kubuni mfumo wa kupanga uhusiano wake na Muumba wake. Kwa hiyo, lazima kuwepo Mjumbe anayefikisha Ujumbe wa Muumba, akiweka mfumo wa kupanga mahusiano kati ya Muumba na viumbe. Akili pia inathibitisha kutoweza kwa kiumbe kubuni mfumo kamili usio na mgongano, kutofautiana au tofauti, ambao kwa msingi wake mwanadamu angeridhisha silika zake na mahitaji yake ya kimwili, kwa mpangilio bora kabisa. Kwa hiyo, kwa mtazamo huu, lazima pia kuwepo mfumo usio na kasoro wala mgongano unaoletwa na Mjumbe, ambao Muumba anauridhia. Basi hakuna mgongano kati ya kufanya njia ya kiakili kuwa fikra ya msingi na Imani thabiti kwa Nguvu ambayo ni Allah (SWT), Anayepanga mambo ya maisha ya binadamu, akiwabainishia lipi ni jema, baya, la kupendeza na la kuchukiza.

It may be asked: how can the rational method of thinking be made the fundamental thinking, as it has been established previously that the mind (‘aql) is incapable, deficient and limited and so it cannot define what is good (khair) or bad (sharr), and what is pleasant (hassan) or ugly (qabeeh)? Or how can rational thinking be the fundamental thinking for humans, when it is said after that there is a Power other than the mind that determines for man what brings him benefit and what prevents harm? The answer is: Rational thinking is itself the basis to affirm such a Power that determines for a man what is good or bad, what is pleasant or ugly. Thus, the mind confirms that there is a Creator behind the universe, man and life who created them all, and He is Allah (swt). The mind also confirms that man is a creation who is incapable of generating a system to organize his relationship with his Creator. Accordingly, there must be a Messenger who conveys the Message of the Creator, placing the system to organize the relationships between the Creator and the created. The mind also confirms the inability of a creature to generate a complete system without contradiction or disparity or difference, upon whose basis man would satiate his instincts and organic needs, with the finest of arrangements. Accordingly, from this perspective, there must also be a system devoid of imperfection and contradiction conveyed by the Messenger, which the Creator is pleased with. Thus there is no contradiction between making the rational method the fundamental thinking and Imaan (confirmed belief) in the Power Who is Allah (swt), Who organizes the life affairs of humans, defining for them what is good, bad, pleasant and ugly.