1 Maana ya Ustaarabu (Hadhara) - Mgongano Usioepukika wa Ustaarabu | Quran Course

1 Maana ya Ustaarabu (Hadhara) - Mgongano Usioepukika wa Ustaarabu | Quran Course

Ni lazima kuzingatia tofauti kati ya hadhara (ustaarabu) na madaniyya (utamaduni wa kimaada) wakati wote, kama ilivyo lazima kuzingatia tofauti kati ya vitu vya kimaada vinavyotokana na hadhara na vitu vya kimaada vinavyotokana na sayansi na viwanda. Hii ni ili, wakati wa kuchukua madaniyya, tuzingatie tofauti kati ya vitu vyake, na tofauti kati yake na hadhara. Hakuna pingamizi katika kuchukua madaniyya ya Magharibi inayotokana na sayansi na viwanda. Kwa upande wa madaniyya ya Magharibi inayotokana na hadhara ya Magharibi, hairuhusiwi kuichukua kwa namna yoyote ile, kwa sababu inapingana na hadhara ya Kiislamu katika msingi unaojengwa juu yake, yaani itikadi (‘aqeedah). Itikadi yetu ni tofauti na itikadi yao, ambayo imejengwa juu ya suluhu ya maelewano na kutenganisha dini na maisha; katika taswira ya maisha ya dunia na kigezo cha matendo; ambacho kwetu ni halali na haramu, na kwao ni manufaa; na katika maana ya furaha, ambayo ni utulivu wa kudumu, ambao kwetu ni kupata radhi za Allah (SWT), na kwao ni starehe za kimwili.

The distinction between civilisation (hadhara) and madaniyya must be observed at all times, just as it is imperative to observe the distinction between the material objects derived from civilisation and the material objects derived from science and industry. That is in order to observe, when adopting madaniyya, the distinction between its objects, and the distinction between it and civilisation. There is no objection to adopting Western madaniyya derived from science and industry. As for Western madaniyya derived from Western civilisation, it is not permitted to adopt it in any case whatsoever due to its contradiction with the Islamic civilisation in the basis upon which it is built namely the doctrine (‘aqeedah). Our ‘aqeedah is different from their doctrine that is built upon the compromise solution and separating religion from life; in the depiction of worldly life or the criterion for actions; which is the halal and haram for us, and benefit for them; and in the meaning of happiness which is permanent tranquillity, which is - for us - attaining the pleasure of Allah, and for them the bodily pleasures.

Swali linaweza kuulizwa hivi: Kwa nini ulichukua istilahi ya 'hadhara' kwa dhana, na istilahi ya 'madaniyya' kwa maumbo ya kimaada, badala ya kinyume chake? Kwa lugha, 'hadhara' ni makazi katika eneo lenye ustaarabu (kama miji), na 'al-hadhir' ni yule aliye wa miji na vijiji. Al-Qatami alisema: 'Mwenye kuridhika kuishi mijini. Ni wanaume gani wa Kibedui watatuona?' Ama 'madana' mahali maana yake ni kuishi humo, na 'madina' pia maana yake ni kufika mjini (madinah), hivyo maana hizo mbili zinakaribiana. Kwa swali hili (linalojielekeza lenyewe) kunajibiwa kwamba: 'hadhara' hutumika katika lugha kwa maana zinazohusiana na fikra, hivyo ni karibu zaidi kuitumia kwa dhana. Ilisemwa katika 'Al-Qamus': "Hadhura ni kama nadusa, ambaye ni mtu wa ufasaha (bayan) na ufahamu (fiqh)." Katika 'Al-Lisan' imesemwa: "mwanaume 'hadhr' maana yake ni mwenye ufasaha, na mwanaume 'hadhir' akileta kitu chema." Pia katika 'Al-Lisan' imekuja: "Na katika hadithi: 'Sema yale yaliyo yahdhurukum' yaani yale yaliyopo na yaliyopo ndani yenu, wala msijilemeze kwa kitu kingine." Kwa hiyo 'hadhara' ni karibu zaidi, ina mshikamano zaidi na inafaa zaidi kutumika kwa mkusanyiko wa dhana kuliko kutumia 'madaniyya', na 'madaniyya' ni karibu zaidi kutumika kwa vitu vya kimaada. Imesemwa kwamba hakuna ubishi katika istilahi, na muhimu ni kutofautisha kati ya dhana na vitu vya kimaada vinavyotokana nazo, na vitu vya kimaada vinavyotokana nazo, na vitu vinavyotokana na sayansi safi, uvumbuzi na viwanda. Ya kwanza inakataliwa na hairuhusiwi kuichukua, wakati ya pili inaruhusiwa kuichukua.

If it is said: Why did you adopt the technical term 'hadhara' for concepts and the term 'madaniyya' for material forms instead of the reverse? Hadhara in language, is residence in a civilised region (like towns), while 'al-hadhir' is the one who is of towns and villages. Al- Qatami said: 'Whoever is pleased with residing in towns. Which Bedouin men will see us?' While 'madana' in the place means to reside therein, and 'madina' means also to arrive to the town (madinah), so the two meanings are close to each other. It is said in response to this (self-directed) question: hadhara is used in the language for meanings related to thoughts, so it is closer to use it for concepts. It was said in 'Al-Qamus': "Hadhura is like nadusa which is the man of eloquence. (bayan) and understanding (fiqh)." In Al- Lisan, it is said: "a man 'hadhr' to mean eloquent, and a man 'hadhir' if he brought something good." It also came in 'Al-Lisan': "And in the hadith: 'Say that which yahdhurukum' i.e. that which is present and existing in you, and do not burden yourselves with something else." So hadhara is closer, more consistent and appropriate to use for the collection of concepts than using madaniyya, and madaniyya is closer to be used in material objects. It has been said that there is no contest in technical terminology (istilah), and what is important is distinguishing between concepts and material objects derived thereof, and material objects derived from them and material objects derived from pure sciences, inventions and industry. The first is rejected and it is not permitted to take them, while it is permitted to take the second.

Tulisema kwamba ustaarabu (hadhara) ni mkusanyiko wa dhana kuhusu maisha, na kwamba either ni ustaarabu wa kiroho wa kiungu (deeniyya) au wa kutengenezwa na binadamu. Mfano wa ustaarabu wa kiungu wa kiroho ni ustaarabu wa Kiislamu, na mifano ya ustaarabu wa kutengenezwa na binadamu ni ustaarabu wa Kihindi na ustaarabu wa Kimagharibi. Kuwepo kwa ustaarabu hizi ni jambo lisilo na shaka na ukweli uliothibitishwa usiopingika. Vivyo hivyo tofauti kati yao, kiasi kwamba hakuna awezaye kuikana isipokuwa mwongo. Chanzo cha ustaarabu wa kiungu, kwa mujibu wa watu wake, ni wahyi; chanzo cha ustaarabu wa kutengenezwa na binadamu ni watu waliokubaliana juu yake. Hili pekee linatosha kwa kutofautisha na kutenganisha. Hata kama inaonekana aina fulani ya mkutano katika baadhi ya dhana, hii si makubaliano wala jambo la pamoja. Hii ni kwa sababu ustaarabu, unapokubaliwa, lazima ukubaliwe pamoja na msingi uliotokana nao au msingi unaojengwa juu yake. Hivyo basi, ikiwa msingi kati ya ustaarabu mbili ni tofauti, makubaliano kati ya baadhi ya dhana zao, au kuwepo kwa mfanano kati ya baadhi ya dhana zao kuhusu maisha, hayastahili kuzingatiwa. Hii ni kwa sababu dhana ni tawi kutoka kwenye msingi wake (asl), na haiwezi kukubaliwa isipokuwa pamoja na msingi wake. Ustaarabu wa Kiislamu na ustaarabu wa Kimagharibi zote mbili zinaruhusu kula samaki, kuvaa sufi, umiliki binafsi, kumwakilisha mwanamke, kumhesabu mtawala na kutumia dawa. Hata hivyo, mambo haya na yanayofanana nayo hayazingatiwi kuwa ya ustaarabu wa Kiislamu isipokuwa yakikubaliwa kwa msingi wa kuwa ni wahyi kutoka kwa Allah kwenda kwa Muhammad ﷺ, yaani kwa msingi wa kuwa ni Shar'a, ilhali yanakubaliwa katika ustaarabu wa Kibepari kwa msingi wa kuwa ni maslahi (maslaha) au kwa kuboreshwa na akili zao. Ikiwa Mwislamu atayakubali kwa msingi wa maslahi yao (maslaha) au uboreshaji wa kiakili, haihesabiwi kuwa ni kuchukua kutoka kwa Uislamu.

We have said that the civilisation (hadhara) is a collection of concepts about life, and that either it is a spiritual divine one (deeniyya) or man- made. An example of the spiritual divine civilisation is the Islamic civilisation, and an example of the man-made are the Indian civilisation and Western civilisation. The existence of these civilisations is a definite matter and an incontestable established fact. Likewise is the difference between them, such that none but the liar can deny it. The source of the divine civilisation, according to its people, is revelation; the source of the man-made civilisation is the people who agreed on it. This alone suffices is enough for distinction and difference. Even if there appears a type of meeting in some of the concepts, this is not an agreement or a common matter. This is because civilisation, when it is adopted, must be adopted together with the basis from which it emanated or the basis it is built upon. So if the basis between two civilisations is different, the agreement between some of their concepts, or the existence of similarity between some of their concepts about life, is worth no attention. This is because the concept is a branch from its basis (asl), and it cannot be adopted except with its basis. Both the Islamic civilisation and the Western civilisation allow eating fish, wearing wool, private property, delegating the woman, accounting the ruler and taking medicine. However, these and their like are not considered of the Islamic civilisation unless they are adopted based upon being revelation from Allah to Muhammad i.e. upon their being Shar'a, whereas they are adopted in the Capitalist civilisation based upon their being of interest (maslaha) or their being ameliorated by their minds. If the Muslim adopts them based upon their interest (maslaha)or the rational amelioration, it is not considered adopting from Islam.