inFusioN

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

I am a bit worried with the developments that is happening this week, mainly because the things that I am reading is becoming increasingly complex and that it requires full mental exertion in order to get it right.

The thing is, I don’t think that after this experience, I can ever be the same again. I am certainly loosing touch with the realities that I am used to; the deterministic, materilistic universe that I have come to love. The problems concerning the epistemology and ontological differences between all the different interpretation of philosophy has occupied my mind for quite the whole of this week. The result is perhaps a sceptism of life itself, what reality really means. People speak of the brain being a matrix, yet the problem with that is that we are presupposing that our senses are indeed giving us the right sensations of the world, and that existence is, in the end, deterministic.

Of course, that would make perfect sense in a Newtonian world view, but the advent of modern physics has shown us that it is insufficient, and that perhaps there are things that is missing from our interpretation of the universe. Perhaps the Atomists’ point of view that we always take as being true (broadly speaking, not clear, can’t be bothered to explain) has to be replaced with Idealism, and yet there are still problems with Idealism, as there are problems with Positivism, Realism as well as espousing to the view that Metaphysics is relevant again. Empiricism, Instrumentalism, all the isms have their own critiques, all of which points to a simple explanation; logic is subjective to one’s own experiences and belief.

Perhaps it is a mistake in saying that, that by saying that I am espousing to a particular point of view in the philosophical discussion. That said, everyone does, I would think. Everyone thinks their model is the truth, at least to them. How far can we go beyond ourselves, one might ask. The problem with seeking for the truth is that it is subjected to the experiences that we gain as human beings.

Who are you to say that just because you think this particular view is right that mine is wrong? I may have my own ideas, and my own way of thinking, therefore, I might be right in my own context. Of course, there are certain things that we assume to be true - that Gravity exists in a field, that a field of some description exists, that forces are real - but there are ways of arguing which may rebutt the need for a deterministic way of thinking, to the point that we can question the basic things that we assume to be true.

I suppose that is just the way humans are. Before Newton, it was not widely believed that mathematics alone can describe Nature, and yet it did, to some extent. Now with Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, who knows what kind of things that we may think off. Perhaps going back to the ancients is a good idea; there is always benefit in having hindsight.

Wallahua’lam

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

New room today, was moved from 59 to 56; a new tutor came in. I was reading and discussing some stuff with Prof Sahidan today, and it strikes me that the basic world view that we have nowadays is that of determinism. Its a relic of classical physics’ stunning successes in describing the natural world.

However, I find it a bit odd that in the quantum world, we can only be deterministic only up to a certain extent, due to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Because of this, I am beginning to question the scope of the quantum world, and why it is defined or at least assumed to be at that particular range of length. Quantum physics, heavy with maths, seem to govern this world. It is rather interesting to note that mathematics is indeed very useful for describing nature. The epistemology of today’s physics seem to be built around the notion of that. But then, one can always ask why it is so. It has been suggested that true knowledge can be obtained by reasoning, and by extension, mathematics. And yet with reasoning, we can’t simply disregard the fact that the reasoning that we ourselves made up is influenced by the natural world that we live in, one in which we assume to be external to our own; meaning that we can measure it without us having any impact on it. A lot is converging in this particular topic, and I shudder when I think of the amount of stuff that I don’t know. This entry is by no means critical, it is merely my thoughts after reading 100 pages of critical philosophy history. It seems to me that some things are not consistent; how can we be completely deterministic yet have a low cut off point? How can we be sure of our measurements when the question of consciousness has yet to be resolved? How is it that we remain consistent philosophically when many pressing questions have yet to be addressed to?

And then, there is the Islamic perspective. There seem to be a move towards Islamizing knowledge, whose movement has come into the scientific field of study. Such movements are indeed good in a sense that Muslims want to catch up with development, but we can never deny that the current world view has influence even the Islamists. The notion of things being deterministic, and the materialism of things have, as far as I can tell, left its imprint even on the people who wants to Islamize this knowledge. Whether this is good or not, I have no idea.

Perhaps we need a revolution, a major breakthrough in the way we think. To me, it seems we are again moving towards the era of speculative philosophy again, but with better tools to analyze nature. Perhaps we will never know the answer to all the questions that are dodging us, but then, if we do, life will not be as exciting, will it?

Wallahua’lam

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

Currently am not able to do any work for reasons unknown to me (Perhaps I have yet to find the balance between work and play in this new setting of emptiness). However, I do have had an entertaining 2 days when looking at the new students coming into UKM.

I find it funny, how different the treatment of students, especially coming from Imperial College London. They were being herded all throughout these 2 days. Jokingly, I said to my mom who happens to be a lecturer in UKM that these people are being managed like a sheep by a sheep-herder. Perhaps it is due to UKM’s immense size (it is huge), but that doesn’t mean that you need to group people together and bring them around the campus. Give them a map, that should be enough. When I came to Imperial, there really wasn’t anyone; I was the only Malaysian in the department, and I generally don’t know anyone. Yet for some reason I survived. London being London, I suppose everyone needs to fend for themselves.

Which made me wonder, what is the justification for all this? They are being made to walk around campus in sweaty shirts, wearing ridiculously big tie (some of them wear walking shoes with their slacks, which is a bit odd, to me) for boys, and in dark blue “Baju Kurung” (which seemed to me to retain heat rather dissipate it) for girls when they are supposed to be university students capable of surviving for themselves. Yes, they may need some guidance. Yes, they may be new to this experience. But to me, to manhandle people like that is just a bit odd, especially when we are dealing with intelligent young people (unless of course, they are not intelligent, in which case, they wouldn’t have gotten into university in the first place).

It just seemed odd to me, these kinds of things. They are at least 18 years of age, yet we are treating them like they are 13. Even their schedule is being dictated; when to play, what to wear during those times, etc. Of course, I understand the motivation for this - I was in that system before - but I simply don’t like it.

Maybe I just pity them. Walking in the heat, with the high degree of humidity, I think, isn’t pleasant. If it were me, I would hate to go through that.

Wallahua’lam

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

These past few weeks has been rather an interesting experiece. Am now doing an attachment programme in UKM, looking into philosophical problems in interpreting the Quantum World, studying first the ancient thoughts of the Greeks in order to understand the modern debate better. At the same time, am also reading, as the post before this shows, some political philosophy in order to understand the world better.

Both are interesting in their own right, and I have a suspicion that they are intimately tied to one another. Both are indeed new modes of thought, forcing me to think in a way which disregards the usual notions of deterministic outcomes of stuff. Perhaps they are, indeed, mutually complementary. The existence and meaning of the self is certainly related to the moral ideologies of liberalism, and the relativisitic position of communitarians seem to reflect some ideas in thinking of the nature of existence.

Having said all this, however, it is a great strain to my already bewildered mind. Interesting though they maybe, it requires a great deal of attention on the part of the reader in order to comprehend all the arguments, many of which seems to be at odds with one another. It is certainly different from the way we are thought conventionally in schools; A + B must and necessarily equals C. Such notions seem childish and immature under scrutiny.

Perhaps this is just a process of growing up. I am indeed a child in these matters. Heck, I don’t even understand fully the consept of monism and why people are arguing against it, let alone its consequences on the modern philosophical debate. (After further inspection, it may seem a simple idea after all. ).

These things, suffice to say, are intellectual curiosities. It is so much fun and refreshing, and present challenges of its own. Pray that I don’t lose my mind before that, though.

Wallahua’lam

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

For about 2 weeks now, I have been reading a book on Political Philosophy by Adam Swift. Indeed, the book is very refreshing; a different way of thinking. After reading only 2 chapters, I realized how poorly framed most of the political stuff that I read usually. Now am finishing a chapter on Equality. Interesting, the discussion has become, because it touched on an issue that is seemingly simple, yet after further scrutiny, is quite tricky, namely, equal opportunities.

Perhaps it is close to my heart, that particular issue, that I find the discussion really engaging. I have thought that equal opportunity simply means that; that everyone is equal when, say, applying for a job. Race, religion, creed etc, isn’t supposed to be considered. And yet, how can such a simplistic account of equality is the truth? Equality means just that, everyone is equal. How can we say that the opportunities are truly equal when the starting points are different, i.e. different background, different education etc? In some sense, this will mean that the parents of these particular persons should be equal in terms of resources to start with. However, different amounts of effort and leisure will result to inequality in terms of resources amassed, which brings back original the problem. Even if their (the parents of these people) efforts are equal, difference in talent will also lead to the same result. Do we then mind the gap between such difference? If so, how will one make a concrete estimate of how big this gap is? In the end, equality, even in its simplest form, is a hard concept to comprehend fully (or perhaps I just need to think things through or read more books).

Thing is, we do want equality in some sense. We want equality in a sense that we want equality before the law, we want equality when dealing with humans, being treated as an equal human. Therefore, the concept is not absolutely obsolete. How we go about it is a totally different thing.

This entry is more of a rambling than anything else. After reading the chapters on social justice and liberty, and now on equality, I think I may be stretching myself too far with this one. Tomorrow I will be seeing a professor in UKM to discuss the topic that I will be researching on during this summer. If its a physics-related philosophical topic, I worry that I will not be able to keep my sanity for next year.

Rambling, rambling…

Perhaps I really should watch the TV more, huh? The weeks of study, books, intellectual discussions, historical analysis, has truly worn me down. Not that its bad, just that the experience is unprecedented. Even in my rest I can’t stop thinking about stuff that is considered by many as heavy. Is that good or is that bad? I have no idea.

Wallahua’lam

Excerpt from MalaysiaKini.com, 18th June 08

The Sultan of Selangor has threatened to cancel a football tournament after the Islamic opposition party PAS objected to the entertainers performing at the event, a report said today.

MCPXSultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah told the Star daily that the protest over the two women - rock singer Ella (left) and Mas Idayu, who performs the hip-swivelling dangdut dance - was “hypocritical” and “trivial”.

He said future Selangor Cup matches between his state and Singapore could be cancelled if PAS was successful in its campaign to have them struck off the schedule.
“If this is going to be so difficult, we might as well hold this annual event in Singapore. I am sure they will be more than happy to play host,” he told the daily.
The PAS youth wing in Selangor sent a memorandum to the state’s menteri besar objecting to the performers at the July 6 match, saying they were inappropriate as the event would be attended by many youngsters.

Why the fuss?

It threatened to demonstrate at the stadium if the women were allowed to perform, the Star said.
Malaysia’s population is predominantly Muslim, and the nation’s sultans are the traditional guardians of Islam in the states they rule.
But Sharafuddin said Selangor was not made up of “just PAS and Muslims” and that in any case the two performers were suitable for families.
“I don’t know what the fuss is all about,” he said.
PAS, which rules the northern state of Kelantan, has had ambitions of turning Malaysia into a theocratic state under Islamic rule.
However, in recent years it has begun introducing reforms designed to tone down its hardline reputation and woo young voters

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

I was reading through this news and was thinking about it after reading another article in MalaysiaKini.com’s Vox Populi (literally, the voice of the people) this morning. The thing that I don’t understand is why this seeming impatience in doing stuff on the part of the PAS Youth in making their dreams come true.

Let me explain, after the 12th General Election in Malaysia, there was a huge shift in power in politics in Malaysia (as of now, the Badawi administration seems to be very weak indeed, though the probability of the PR to take over is not that great). This shift was due to, to some extent, and from what I read and listened to, a huge shift in the votes of non Malays in the ballot boxes. I don’t want to analyze the results of the past General Election, but it is suffice to say that the swing of the majority Malay Muslim majority was not impressive compared to the non Malays (please forgive me for using these words, I need to make my point as clear as possible. For the record, I dislike using these classifications. To me, it demeans people).

Now, how is this significant to the issue? We are talking about Selangor here, not Kelantan. That’s a huge difference. The Selangor popolation is mainly urban, and is a mix of all the races. Therefore, the dynamics of this particular society is different from Kelantan. An urban and mostly liberal society is harder to woo than a non urban and traditional one. This is proven even back to the Romans and Greek civilizations. So, in order to make one’s aspirations reality, one needs to be clever in doing it. One must bear in mind the prejudices and paranoia of everyone (including oneself) when judging one’s actions or other people’s action. One needs to assess the situation correctly before making a move.

Now, with regards to the concert in conjunction with the football match with Singapore, I was rather exasperated when reading it. Not long ago, the PAS Youth made a statement about wanting Islamic rule in all of the state that the PR controls. With the prejudices that exists in society about an Islamic rule, is this wise? Of course one might argue that they need to give out such statements because they are members of PAS, but is it truly wise? When people speak of an ‘Islamic rule’ the most predominant view is that of cutting people’s hands and polygamy. The former a perceived act of barbarity and the second a feminist’s nightmare. With the mainstream media not controlled by the PR, how will the PAS Youth knows that their words will be taken in its right context? What is more, a political philosopher can break such arguments apart by arguing about freedom, social justice, democracy etc. All of which, if done carefully enough, may give an impression that PAS wants an authoritarian state, hinting on a communist one. Therefore the question, is such a statement truly wise?

Add to that the new statement by the PAS Youth about the concert featuring Ella and Mas Idayu, is this not making things worse, at least the perception towards Islam? Muslims may ask, why is the state interfering with one’s freedom? (the argument for freedom, as far as I know, can go quite far. And the authoritarian view of it may mirror that of a Maxist argement (c.f Berlin inauguration lecture on liberty, positive freedom), which can be dangerous in many ways, though beneficial in some). “Is not ultimate accountability is towards God?” is also a famous argument. Not to say I agree to this 100%, but what I am saying is that people will rebel if they don’t like it. Non Muslims may think, “Who are you to impose these things to me? I don’t even believe in your religion, yet you are dictating what I should and should not watch. Were the promises made during the campaigning period a mere farce?”. Quoting a letter on MalaysiaKini.com:

Pakatan Rakyat is a multi-racial political coalition where all races have equal rights. Please respect all the people. No single party in Pakatan is allowed to act alone or on their own interest.

If PAS wants to implement this agenda or if they have any motives behind, please leave Pakatan Rakyat. You are not welcome if you are not in line with PKR objectives which is to fight for all races as one nationality - Malaysians.

Again, why this apparent rush? Does the PAS Youth thinks that just because they have MB’s in 3 states, that means that people want radical changes in their lives? Bear in mind the composition and the extent of the swing of the Malay Muslim majority. Being Muslims doesn’t mean they are PAS supporters. Heck, many of them may not even believe in what PAS is fighting for; they just don’t want to vote for Barisan. And many of them might like to see Mas Idayu and Ella sing (even I find some of the songs entertaining, though that doesn’t mean I like the singers). By doing this, doesn’t it alienate people who might support PAS in the future?

Having said all this, I am not saying that I agree 100% with the concert; I have my own views on that issue. However, as a political move, I think what the PAS Youth is doing is untimely and unwise as of now. I am not supporting the motion or disagreeing with it, I am merely saying it is unwise. The PR has an excellent chance now to prove to the rakyat that they can govern well - that should be the first step. And by governing well, one needs to see the realities and dynamics of society. Make concrete steps forwards, learn from history. Read history critically, and see where people of old went wrong. In some ways, islamists in general, and PAS specifically, is simply imitating what the Christian priests of the Medieval Ages have done; same reasons, same actions. And look at what good it did for them.

Again the question, is it wise to do so?

Wallahua’lam

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

I was thinking about some stuff with regards to science and religion after reading an article about teleportation and Islam, and it occurred to me how it is rather interesting that in the fervour of Islamists to incorporate much of the scientific knowledge of the 20th and 21st centuries, many people used science in order to justify claims in religion, not that science is a mere supporter of the claims of the Quran.

Why I said this is because science is descriptive in nature. It describes things, it doesn’t have support any ideology or religion. The fact that in some instances it proves some of the claims made in the Quran builds a case for the Quran, not the other way around. What this means is that the findings of science should naturally support the Quran, and verses of the Quran should not be read too literally in order to fit it to the Quran’s claims. There should simply be no contradiction.

Take a famous example, the verse on the universe, which translates roughly as:

“Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?” (21:31)

Now, what does this verse mean? Scholars seem to have settled on the Big Bang, and thus the connection between science and the Quran is made. However, they may also be construed as the various other cosmological processes that is possible. I am not against such interpretations of the Quran, but there seem to me that there is so little care in doing these connections, something that even the scientists are careful in doing. When scientists interpret a physical phenomena, they always do it in this manner “This phenomena … may be explain if we invoke / think of this particular situation … as being made up of …. . Therefore, if we are to think that it is … it might explain why this the phenomena is as such. With this model, let us see what other experiments that we can do in order to see whether or not our interpretation is correct or not, and if true, to what degree it is true.”

Now, I am not saying that there should not be a study in science and the Quran, but what I am saying is that I don’t think we should treat our interpretations without the if’s and maybe’s and probably’s. I don’t think we should treat it as if its 100% correct, because it is an interpretation, from an observation. If such an interpretation proved to be wrong, then one doesn’t have the Quran on the line of fire; rather, the human who interpreted it.

Science has its discipline, and this discipline should be followed. Islamists hate it when people start to quote the Quran and interpret it without knowing various other fields of knowledge, yet when people stumble upon a scientific discovery that may hint on a Quranic verse, they take it literally without any regard of what conditions such discovery was made, in what limiting factors, to what extent. The connection was simply made without making qualified statements like “Therefore it may be connected to verse …. , which implies that … because in the research that is done, one interpretation on it can mean …. . However, there is another interpretation which may contradict this, which goes …. . We disagree because …. “

Such statements are a rarity. People hijack science to justify many things, and I don’t expect people to do so with my religion. There is nothing wrong in making that connection between Islam and science, but not enough care is taken when doing so, and people assume it to be true, when in actuality it is merely an interpretation which may be rebuked by logic.

Which leads me to my next point, the trappings of logic. As of now, I have yet to found an argument that indisputably prove that God exist, and that God doesn’t exist. Indisputable here means there can be no counter argument, and that the debate is settled without a shred of doubt. This is one of the reasons why Muslims should take care of what they are saying, because there can always be counter arguments that can go the other way. Use it to empower oneself in one’s faith, no problem. But don’t expect everyone and anyone will take one’s arguments without a fight, and that one will always win because one thinks one is in the true path, and one can never be defeated.

In a nutshell, what I am trying to say is simply this: When connecting science and religion, be very careful and precise in doing so, lest people ridicule Muslims. Understand why things go the way it did, and what are the constraints that are involved before making statements. This way, people will know what one’s arguments are and are in a better position to judge its truth.

Wallahua’lam

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

A nice song from the movie My Neighbour Totoro by Joe Hisashi (great composer, btw). Enjoy.

Wallahua’lam

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

I was talking to my friends with regards to a new post in www.iluvislam.com regarding Liberal Islamists. It was a rather fruitful discussion, I would think, and it shows a few things that shows the sort of attitude that traditionalists and the so-called liberals. Before I start, I will state here that I dislike labels, but I will use it here so that the post doesn’t become too long.

There seem to be a sort of exclusiveness that is attached to these Islamists movements, not least because I am not part of any of it. When talking about labels of all these different sects of Islam, we often forget 1 vital thing; they all claim to embody the true spirit of Islam, and they all wants to fight for what they think is true.

The problem comes when people of different sects start to call other sects names. I know that this is a difficult topic to write on, and hence, I do not wish to indulge too much in ideological differences between different sects, rather, I want to concentrate on Liberal Islamists, at least what I know of them, and how I personally feel about the matter.

To me personally, the term “Liberal” and “Islam” should not be separated. Islam has always been liberal in a sense that it continues to evolve when meeting challenges, and adapts its rulings according to the current situation and challenges that it faces. Islam as a religion is dynamic, and I personally believe that it is more of a personal choice, rather than coercion. What I mean by that is that one does one’s best to live as close as possible to what one thinks, from one’s diligent study of the religion, is the true path of life. And in doing so, one will find oneself in positions of disagreement with other people and I think, the thing that has been lost is this ability to agree to disagree.

For example, I might disagree with Hizbut Tahrir’s stand on democracy as a legitimate means of creating a government, and I have my own views on the matter that I get from my reading and from the talks that I’ve been to. This, however, does not mean that I should go and accuse them of being heretical or anything. I respect their views. The problem arises where there is not this mutual trust in doing so, and there is uneasiness between different sects of groups. Wahabism, from what I know from my reading, might call people as doing bid’ah (innovative things), and such claims hurt people. I would not agree with them with their labeling of people, but at the same time, I personally will not call them names as well. If they do things that to me is wrong, that doesn’t give me the right to do the same thing as they did.

Its the same thing with this Liberal Islamists, and their apparent clash with the traditionalists. Because to me Islam is a progressive and ever evolving religion, there is not really anything wrong in saying that Islam is liberal, in that sense of the word. However, one needs to know the disciplines in Islamic thought in order to make a judgment on things that are with regards to religion. For example, SIS, Sisters In Islam, may be fighting for gender equality, and they believe that gender equality is promoted in Islam. To me and many scholars, this is not right.However, that does not mean that they should be dismissed just like that. Their interpretations are based on their experiences, and from some texts that (generally, and this is an opinion from what I read), are based on fatwas that the great Ulama’ has deemed as weak.

Bear in mind, to me, if they don’t care at all about Islam, they would not have bothered to put in the name of Sisters In Islam, as it will complicate matters. They might be misguided, yes, but that does not mean that they don’t care about the religion. Therefore, what we need are people who can present their case logically, with all the right resources and references.

For this to work, it will require 2 things:

i) The desire and ability to listen from both sides.

ii) The desire to debate to find the truth, and not to justify one’s position or to win.

Hence, I personally find it rather interesting to note that there has been little that is done for such things to happen. The traditionalists will condemn SIS in mosques, where the members of SIS don’t naturally go, and SIS members will condemn the traditionalists in conferences and the such, where the traditionalists loath to go (at least from what I know of). There is this tendency to look down on each other, thinking that the other is wrong, and also having suspicions on each other. There is no genuine desire to learn from each other, to understand each other, to comes to terms with each other’s ideas and most importantly, to agree to disagree.

Because I come from a more traditional stream of education, I firmly believe that it is the traditionalists, the conservatives that should take the higher moral ground and start and continue to press on the case to the liberals. This requires patience and persistence, but it has to be done. Who else that should be doing these kinds of things if not people who claim to be nearer to the Prophet?

And yet, throughout all this, people speak of the Muslim problem requiring the unity of the umma. Is this not strange and paradoxical?

Wallahua’lam

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

There seem to be a trend with me that i find a bit worrying; I think that I am good.

This is the topic of this post; that knowledge has trappings beyond the conceivable and that it is very easy to trudge the path of life knowing all too well that one might fall into the fallacy of thinking that one knows the world enough to simply disregard people’s opinions.

This realization came when I was reading a friend’s status in one of this Instant Messaging apps, and I thought to myself, ‘Oh my, how unjust I have been!

Thing is, I view myself as someone who is able to take all points of view into account, and then try to construct an idea which takes the middle way between all these ideas, so that it becomes a solid grounding for future analysis on society

However, it has just been realized that my own stand disregards the people whose very ideas I’ve taken into account. I would think ‘I know this point, and I know the weaknesses of such and such’. This might be true to some extent, but I realized that in order to affect change, and to convince people to look at other ideas, I have to understand them first, and respect their points of view, no matter how advanced I think I am.

Perhaps this is just one of the trappings of knowledge, that of arrogance and conceit. Perhaps it is because I have yet to find people who disagrees with me consistently without me having to tell him/her all the points of view that I considered. Maybe I am simply arrogant and conceited, I seek refuge from God from such sins.

This post is a mere reflection of myself. I have done people wrong, therefore, done myself injustice. Hopefully readers can point out my mistakes so as to remind me of my humble nature, and also so that the knowledge that I gained throughout the journey called life does not make me arrogant.

I seek refuge from God from everything that is bad for me in this world…

wallahua’lam