4.1 Upotovu wa Usekula kama Itikadi - Kukanusha Fikra ya Kibepari ya Magharibi | Quran Course

4.1 Upotovu wa Usekula kama Itikadi - Kukanusha Fikra ya Kibepari ya Magharibi | Quran Course

Hapa tunakabiliana na suala la ushahidi, kwani Magharibi inaweka kikomo cha uthibitisho wa ushahidi kwa sayansi peke yake. Dominique Morin anasema katika kitabu chake Dieu Existe-t-il? (Je, Mungu Yupo?), "Ikiwa jambo linahusu uwepo wa Mungu, wanafalsafa na wanatheolojia wa Kikristo wamekubaliana kwamba neno ushahidi, ambalo hakika katika ulimwengu wetu limeunganishwa na usahihi wa sayansi, halifai. Hivyo, wengi, kama Thomas Aquinas, wanapendelea kuzungumzia njia za kumfikia Mungu." Papa wa zamani Benedict XVI, Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, alibainisha katika kitabu chake, Introduction to Christianity (kwa Kijerumani: Einfuhrung in das Christentum), "Je, dhamiri ya Kikristo haijakubali, kwa kiasi kikubwa—bila kujua—mtazamo kwamba imani kwa Mungu ni kitu cha kibinafsi?" Kuweka kikomo cha ushahidi kwa uzoefu wa kisayansi peke yake ni makosa. Kwa kweli, ushahidi maana yake ni kile kinachoongoza kwenye kile kinachohitajika au kufikia ufahamu wa mambo. Ushahidi ni mbinu iliyothibitishwa ya kuthibitisha usahihi wa kauli moja au dhana moja. Ushahidi ni maarifa yanayohitajika ili kujua maarifa mengine. Hii ndiyo maana ya ushahidi kwa watu wote. Hakuna tofauti katika kufafanua ushahidi kati ya kauli za Waislamu na za Mmagharibi. Katika kitabu chake Kitab Al-Kulliyat (cjLK1I), mwanazuoni Mwislamu Abul Baqaa' Al-Kafaw alisema: "Dalili (JaUI) ni kile kinachoongoza kwenye kile kinachohitajika. Kinachokusudiwa na kumaanishwa nayo ni kuthibitisha... kinachokusudiwa na kumaanishwa na ishara yake ni kile kinachothibitishwa. Moshi unaitwa dalili ya moto. Hivyo neno dalili hutumika kwa kila kitu kinachojulikana kwa kile ambacho dalili inaonyesha, iwe ni mambo yanayoonekana au mambo ya Sharia, iwe ni yenye hakika au isiyo na hakika..." Mmagharibi, Mholanzi H. Willemsen, alisema katika Kamusi yake ya Falsafa (kwa Kidenmark: Woordenboek Filosofie), "Ushahidi wa kauli yoyote ni mbinu inayothibitisha usahihi wake..." Mtu wa Magharibi, mwanamke Mfaransa Jacqueline Russ, katika Kamusi yake ya Falsafa (kwa Kifaransa: Dictionnaire De Philosophie), alisema: "Ushahidi ... ni mchakato ambao kwa huo uhalali wa dhana unathibitishwa." Kwa hiyo, ushahidi ni kitu ambacho kwacho inawezekana kuthibitisha kitu kingine. Huu ndio ushahidi kwa maana ya uhalisia wake miongoni mwa binadamu wote. Kuhusu hali ya kuwa wa kisayansi, au wa kiakili, au wa kimantiki, au wa kiintuitive, au wa kihisia, au chochote kingine zaidi ya hayo, hilo ni suala la sifa zake na muundo wake, si suala la kiini chake. Kwa maneno mengine, kile kinachoongoza kwenye kile kinachohitajika ndicho ushahidi. Kuzingatia kwake kwamba kinatokana na sayansi, au akili, au hisia, ndani ya maelezo ya kile kinachoongoza, hakukiondoi kamwe kuwa ushahidi katika kiini chake na uhalisia wake.

Herein rises an issue related to evidence as the West restricts the indication of evidence to science alone. Dominique Morin says in his book Dieu Existe-t-il? (God Exists), “If the matter is related to the existence of God, Christian philosophers and theologians have agreed that the word evidence, which is definitely in our world connected to the accuracy of science, is inappropriate. Thus, many, like Thomas Aquinas, prefer to speak of the ways to reach God.” The former Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger noted in his book, Introduction to Christianity (German: Einfuhrung in das Christentum), “Has not Christian consciousness acquiesced to a great extent—without being aware of it—in the attitude that faith in God is something subjective.” The restriction of evidence to that of scientific empiricism is wrong. In fact, evidence means that which guides to what is needed or the arrival at the comprehension of issues. Evidence is the affirmed methodology for the validity of one of the statements or one of the hypotheses. Evidence is the necessary knowledge to know another knowledge. This is the meaning of evidence amongst all peoples. There is no difference in defining the evidence between the sayings of the Muslims and the Westerner. In his book Kitab Al- Kulliyat (cjLK1I); the Muslim Aalim, Abul Baqaa' Al-Kafaw said: idence (JaUI) is that which guides to what is needed. What is intended and meant by it is the evidencing ... what is intended and meant by its indication is that which is evidenced. The smoke is termed as the evidence of the fire. Thus the term evidence i.e. evidence is called upon everything known by what the evidence indicates, whether it is tangible or Shariah matters, whether it is definite or indefinite...” The Westerner, the Dutchman, H. Willemsen, said in his Dictionary of Philosophy (Danish: Woordenboek Filosofie), “Evidence of any statement is the method that affirms its validity...” The Westerner, the French women, Jacqueline Russ in her Dictionary of Philosophy (French: Dictionnaire De Philosophic) said, “The evidence...is the process by which the validity of hypothesis is established.” Thus evidence is something by which it is possible to establish something else. This is the evidence in terms of its reality amongst all human beings. As for the condition of being scientific or rational or logical or intuitive or emotional or other than that, it is the subject of its characteristics and constitution, not the subject of its essence. In other words, that which guides to what is needed, is evidence. The consideration of it arising from science or reason or emotion, within the description of that which guides, never stops it from being an evidence in its essence and reality.

Sayansi haifai kuwa ushahidi wa itikadi kwa sababu sayansi inahusika tu na mambo yanayoonekana kwa macho na yanayohisika kwa hisi, kwa ajili ya utafiti na majaribio. Hata hivyo, uwepo wa Mwenyezi Mungu hauonekani kwa macho, ingawa unahisika; na uwepo wa pepo, moto wa Jahannam na malaika hauhisiki, kwa hiyo haviwezi kufanyiwa majaribio. Hapo ndipo makosa ya mtazamo wa Kimagharibi kuhusu itikadi yanapodhihirika, kwa upande wa dhana, masharti na hali. Kwa upande wa kile kinachofaa kuwa ushahidi wa kuthibitisha jambo lolote kwa uhakika, yaani ushahidi wa itikadi, ni akili au njia ya kimantiki. Kama tulivyofafanua hapo juu, hii ndiyo njia pekee inayofaa kuwa msingi wa kufikiri kwa binadamu, ambao juu yake hujengwa hukumu, na kwa msingi wake huanzishwa mtazamo kamili wa uwepo wa binadamu na kusudi lake maishani. Kwa hiyo, mtazamo wetu kuhusu itikadi ya Kimagharibi, katika kuthibitisha kutokuwa sahihi kwake na upotovu wake, umejengwa juu ya akili. Umejengwa juu ya njia ya kimantiki ya kuhukumu mambo na masuala. Upotovu wa itikadi ya Kimagharibi umethibitishwa kimantiki, unaonyeshwa na mambo kadhaa, ambayo ni:

Science is not suitable as evidence for creed because science is limited to issues that are tangible and sensed for research and experimentation. However, the existence of God is not tangible, though sensed, whilst the existence of paradise, hellfire and angels is not sensed and so they cannot be subjected to experimentation. Hence the error of the Western view of the creed, in terms of concept, stipulation and condition, becomes apparent. As for what is suitable as evidence for the decisive affirmation of anything, i.e. as evidence for creed, it is the intellect or the rational method. As we have clarified above, it is the only method that is suitable as a basis of thinking for humans, upon which the judgments are built and the comprehensive view of the existence of man and his purpose in life are established. Accordingly, our view towards the Western creed, in terms of establishing its invalidity and corruption is based on the intellect. It is based on the rational method to judge upon things and issues. The distortion of the Western creed is rationally established indicated by a number of aspects, which are:

1- Itikadi ya Magharibi kwa kweli ni matokeo ya hali za kijamii, kisiasa na kihistoria za Magharibi peke yake. Ilijitokeza kama suluhisho la maridhiano kwa mgogoro kati ya Kanisa, kwa upande mmoja, na wanafikra na watawala, kwa upande mwingine. Haikutokana na fikra wala haikujengwa juu ya akili na busara. Ni itikadi ya makubaliano ya wengi ya kutenda kwa mujibu wa itikadi hii, si itikadi ya akili, yaani watu wake hawakuthibitisha kwa hoja za kiakili uhalali wake. Mfano wa hili ni nchini Ufaransa. Sheria ya LaTcite iliwasilishwa kwa kura ya wengi katika Baraza la Wawakilishi (Chambre des deputes). Tarehe 3/7/1905 LaTcite ilipata kura 341 za kuunga mkono na kura 233 za kupinga. Kisha iliwasilishwa kwenye Baraza la Juu la Kutunga Sheria tarehe 6/12/1905 na matokeo yalikuwa kura 181 za kuunga mkono na kura 102 za kupinga. Hivyo, LaTcite ikawa sheria inayowafunga watu, bila kujali uhalali au ubatili wake kwa mtazamo wa kiakili. Basi, sekularismu haina msingi wa kiakili wa kuthibitishwa. Badala yake, hoja zake zote ni za kihistoria tu, kama udhihirisho wa uzoefu wa watu. Upotofu wa hoja hizi hauko siri kwa mtu yeyote mwenye akili timamu. Mtu akisema, ‘Magharibi iliteseka kwa sababu ya dini, na ikakataliwa nayo. Magharibi ilipotenganisha dini na maisha, Magharibi ikafufuka,’ hata hivyo, anaweza kujibiwa kwa kusema, ‘Waislamu walifufuka na kuinuka kwa dini. Walipodhoofika katika kuelewa dini yao, na ilipoondolewa katika maisha yao, wakadhoofika.’ Kwa hiyo, hukumu za kihistoria zinazoonyesha uzoefu wa watu hazifai kuwa ushahidi wa kiakili wa kuthibitisha uhalali wa itikadi. Lazima kuwepo na hoja za kiakili na ushahidi wa busara, na sekularismu haina hivi.

1- The Western creed is in fact a result of the societal, political and historical circumstances of the West uniquely. It has emerged as a compromise solution for the conflict between the Church, on the one hand, and the thinkers and rulers, on the other. It did not result from a thinking nor was it built upon reason and intellect. It is the creed of popular consensus to act upon this creed and it is not the creed of reason, i.e. its people did not establish its evidence rationally for its validity. An example of this is in France. LaTcite was submitted for majority vote in the House of Representatives (Chambre des deputes). In 3/7/1905 LaTcite received 341 votes for and 233 votes against. Then it was submitted to the Upper Legislative House on 6/12/1905 and the result was 181 votes for and 102 votes against. Thus, LaTcite became law binding upon the people, regardless of its validity or invalidity from the intellectual perspective. So, secularism does not have an intellectual justification for it. Instead, all of its justifications are historical alone, as an expression of the experience of people. The corruption of these justifications are not hidden to any sane person. If someone were to say, ‘The West suffered from the religion, and it was declined by it. When the West separated religion from life, the West was revived.’ However, he can be rebutted by saying, ‘Muslims were revived and elevated with the religion. When they became weak in understanding their religion, when it was removed from their life, they declined.’ Therefore, the historical judgments expressing the experience of people is not suitable as a rational evidence to establish the validity of the creed. There must be intellectual justifications and rational evidence, and secularism lacks these.

Zaidi ya hayo, ni Magharibi inayofanya dini kuwa jambo la mtu binafsi tu, ikikimbia tatizo. Hivyo basi Magharibi haiwezi kulitatua tatizo kwa undani, ama kwa kukubali dini na nafasi yake katika maisha na jamii, au kwa kutetea kuondolewa kabisa kwa dini kwa kuikataa. Badala yake, Magharibi ilichagua maelewano ya kati ya kutenganisha dini na maisha, na kuiacha kama suala la imani na kutokuamini Mungu kwa watu binafsi. Hili linaonyesha kwamba Magharibi haikutatua tatizo kweli, bali ilikimbia tatizo. Kukimbia kutatua tatizo kunamaanisha kwamba tatizo bado linaendelea kuwepo. Hili ndilo lililomsukuma mwanasosholojia maarufu, Peter L. Berger, ambaye alikuwa mmoja wa watetezi wakubwa wa usekula katika miaka ya 1960, kueleza katika kitabu chake, The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, kwamba: "Ingawa neno "nadharia ya usekulishaji" linarejelea kazi za miaka ya 1950 na 1960, wazo kuu la nadharia hiyo kwa kweli linaweza kufuatiliwa hadi Enlightenment. Wazo hilo ni rahisi: Usasa bila shaka unaleta kupungua kwa dini, katika jamii na katika akili za watu binafsi. Na ni wazo hili kuu hasa ambalo limeonekana kuwa si sahihi. Ni kweli kwamba usasa umekuwa na baadhi ya athari za usekulishaji, zaidi mahali pengine kuliko pengine. Lakini pia umechochea harakati zenye nguvu za kupinga usekulishaji." Kwa hiyo, swali kuhusu uhusiano wa dini na maisha bado linaendelea kuwepo, ambalo fikra za Magharibi bado hazijalisoma wala kutoa jibu lake.

Moreover, it is the West that makes religion a matter for individual concern alone, fleeing away from the problem. Thus the West is incapable of solving the problem radically, either by acknowledging religion and its role in life and society, or by advocating the elimination of religion completely, by denying it. Instead of that, the West chose the conciliatory compromise of separating religion from life, leaving it as an issue of belief and atheism for individuals. This reveals that the West did not actually solve the problem, fleeing away from the problem instead. Fleeing away from solving the problem means the problem still persists and continues to exist. This is what prompted the famous sociologist, Peter L. Berger, who was one of the most vocal advocates of secularism in the 1960s, to express in his book, The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, “Although the term “secularization theory” refers to works from the 1950s and 1960s, the key idea of the theory can indeed be traced to the Enlightenment. That idea is simple: Modernization necessarily leads to a decline of religion, both in society and in the minds of individuals. And it is precisely this key idea that has turned out to be wrong. To be sure, modernization has had some secularizing effects, more in some places than in others. But it has also provoked powerful movements of counter-secularization.” Accordingly, the question about the relation of religion to life still continues to exist, which the Western thinking has yet to study and provide an answer for.

3- Itikadi ya kutenganisha dini na maisha inajipinga yenyewe. Hii ni kwa sababu inaithibitisha dini na pia inaikanusha dini kwa wakati mmoja. Kwa kutetea kutenganishwa kwa dini na maisha, inaithibitisha dini, kwa kuwa kutenganishwa kati ya mambo mawili kunakubali na kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa vyote viwili. Kutengana hutokea kati ya vitu viwili vilivyopo. Kutengana hakutokei kati ya vitu viwili visivyokuwepo, wala kati ya kitu kilichopo na kisichokuwepo. Kuhusu kukanusha dini baada ya kuithibitisha, hilo linaeleweka kutokana na uhalisia wa dini yenyewe. Dini ni imani kwa Muumba na kwa Siku ya Ufufuo na Hukumu. Imani kwa Muumba inalazimu kukubali sifa kamilifu za Muumba kama vile uwezo, utawala, kusimamia mambo yote na ujuzi kamili wa kila kitu. Hata hivyo, kutenganisha dini na maisha kunakanusha imani hii. Kunakanusha sifa za Muumba na kukanusha uwezo wake wa kutawala na kusimamia mambo yote. Kwa kuwa dini inalazimu imani katika Siku ya Hukumu, kutenganisha kunalikanusha hilo, kama vile kinavyokanusha matendo kwa ajili ya (siku ya) hukumu. Je, Muumba ndiye atakayehesabiwa kwa yale Anayoamrisha na Anayokataza, au ndiye atakayehesabu yale yanayoamrishwa na kukatazwa, kwa mujibu wa mantiki ya mtu wa Magharibi?

3- The creed of separating religion from life contradicts itself. This is because it both affirms and negates religion at the same time. By advocating the separation of religion from life, it affirms religion, since separation between two matters acknowledges and affirms the existence of both of them. Separation occurs between two existing things. Separation neither occurs between two non-existent things nor between an existing thing and a non-existent thing. As for the negation of religion after its affirmation, it is understood from the reality of religion itself. Religion is a belief in the Creator and in the Day of Resurrection and Judgment. Belief in the Creator mandates acknowledging of the attributes of perfection for the Creator such as ability, governance, managing all the affairs and complete knowledge of everything. However, the separation of religion from life negates this belief. It negates the attributes of the Creator and negates his ability of governance and managing all the affairs. Since religion mandates the belief in the Day of Judgment, the separation negates it, just as it negates the deeds for (the day of) judgment. Should the Creator account upon what He commands and prohibits or is he to account upon what is commanded and prohibited, by the reasoning of Western man?

Zaidi ya hayo, kuthibitisha uwepo wa Muumba kunalazimu kuwa na mtazamo kuhusu uhusiano wake na viumbe. Uhusiano wa Muumba na viumbe lazima ufafanuliwe either na Muumba mwenyewe, au na viumbe. Kwa upande wa viumbe, si sahihi kwao kufafanua uhusiano wao na Muumba kutokana na kutoweza kwao, upungufu wao na mipaka yao. Zaidi ya hayo, viumbe hawana ujuzi kuhusu Mapenzi ya Muumba (Iradathul Khaliq) yanayohusu uumbaji, isipokuwa Muumba mwenyewe awajulishe. Kwa hiyo, kufafanua uhusiano wa Muumba na viumbe ni haki ya Muumba mwenyewe peke yake. Hapa linazuka swali: ni nani mwingine wa kufafanua uhusiano wa Muumba na uumbaji, ikiwa, kwa mujibu wa dhana ya Kimagharibi, dini inapaswa kutenganishwa na mfumo wa Muumba? Ikisemwa kwamba uhusiano huo unafafanuliwa na viumbe, basi huo ni batili, kama tulivyoeleza hapo juu. Ikisemwa kwamba uhusiano huo wa kutenganisha unafafanuliwa na Muumba mwenyewe, basi ushahidi wake uko wapi? Ikiwa kuna ushahidi wowote wa dhana ya Kimagharibi, basi ni usemi wa Biblia, "Mpeni Kaisari vilivyo vya Kaisari, na Mungu vilivyo vya Mungu" (Kigiriki: AttoSote ouv tci Kaioapog Kafoapi koi to toO OeoO to) 0£(jj). Hata hivyo, ushahidi huu ni batili kwa sababu si ushahidi wa kiakili kwa wanadamu wote kwa ujumla. Hii ni kwa sababu ushahidi huo unaweza, kwa upeo wake, kuhalalisha kutenganisha dini na maisha kwa Wakristo tu, kulingana na uelewa wao uliopotoka wa Ukristo. Lakini hilo halihalalishi kutenganisha dini kwa wengine kama Waislamu, kwa kuwa Uislamu unampa Kaisari (mtawala) na mali zake zote kwa Allah (swt). Kwa hiyo, si sahihi kwa usekula kuwa itikadi ya binadamu wote kwa ujumla.

Furthermore, the affirmation of the Creator mandates a view about his relationship with the created. The relation of the Creator with the creation is to be either defined by the Creator, or by the creation. As for the creation, it is not suitable to define its relationship with the Creator due to its inability, deficiency and limitation. This is in addition to its lack of knowledge about the Will of the Creator (Iradathul Khaliq) pertaining to creation, unless the Creator Himself informs the creation. Accordingly, defining the relationship of the Creator with the creation is exclusive to the Creator Himself alone. Here the question arises: who else is to define the relationship of the Creator with creation, if, according to the Western conception, there is to be a separation of religion, or the system of the Creator? If it is said that the relationship is defined by the created, then it is invalid, as we have clarified above. If it is said that such a relationship of separation is defined by the Creator himself, then where is the evidence for it? If there is any evidence of the Western conception, then it is the expression of the Bible, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God’s (Greek: AttoSote ouv tci Kaioapog Kafoapi koi to toO OeoO to) 0£(jj).” However, this evidence is invalid because it is not rational evidence for all of humanity, universally. This is because the evidence may give legitimacy to separating the religion from the life for Christians at best, according to their distorted understanding of Christianity. However, this does not justify the separation of religion for others like Muslims, as Islam renders Caesar (the ruler) and all his possessions to Allah (swt). Thus, it is invalid for secularism to be the creed of humanity as a whole.