Faztur Rehman Faridi
The term methodology has been a subject of “language pollution” to quote Fritz Machiup ,...“of an irreparable sort”. From the maze of writings by philosophers, scientists and social scientists, it is almost impossible to discern a unani- mous or widely acceptable definition of methodology, and what it denotes. Yet the situation is not that hopeless. Underlying the seemingly impenetrable scientific jargon, there is a consensus that methodology is the way to acquire knowledge: It is an approach to reality. It is the study of principles and guidelines that regulate the acquisition of knowledge and its growth in general, and ordered knowledge in particular, that involves the acceptance or rejection of propositions aspartof the body of knowledge in a particular field. The questions that relate to the “scientificity”, “verifia- bility”, of “methodological”, positions adopted in the modern West, belong to the second order ofthings, since each of these derive their meaning and significance within the macro- paradigm of the investigator. This viewis corroborated by the fact that irreconcilable positions have been held with respect to the scientificity of a proposition by the logical positivists, operationalist, Austrians, Marxists and one of the most widely quoted writer on Methodology, Thomas Kuhn. These differences are reflected in particular scientific details as well and how they are incorporated in the main body, the choice of data, their interpretation and the relation of suitable techniques among various alternatives. It follows, therefore, that the first order question relates to the perception of real-
ity: How do we look at it? It is equally relevant to the study of natural as well as social phenomenon. During the early phase of modern scientific endeavour, the scientific commu- nity had a crudely materialistic perception of the world around, or more correctly, the universe itself. Matter was conceived as the summuh bukmwi of reality, the beginning and end of knowledge and christened as “indestructible”. Whatever the reason behind this scientific culture, it could justifiably boast of impressive probes into manifestations of reality, and successful employment of its latent forces for human use. Later advances in science, however, dislodged matter from its pedestal, as it were, and introduced finer concepts of energy, neutrons, proton, electrons and what not. As a result the purely mechanical world, changed into a wayward world, where events may emerge in shapes and forms not as exact constellations of the existing pieces of reality. Even so, the perception ofreality remained essential- ly mundane, in total abhorrence of any notion ofits supernat- ural character transcendental intervention. An incidental casualty of this culture has been the total disregard of the cosmos, the unity of Reality.
In step with developments in the natural sciences, rather in copious imitation thereof, the social scientists made systematic efforts to turn social phenomenon into a true version of the outside world. Marxian dialectics presented
human society as an inevitable side effect of technology, the productive processes determining not only the politico- economic organisation and structure of society but its va- lues, aspirations, morals, world-view and all that. Although Marx was formally rejected by the suspicious West, he wielded considerable influence, both negatively and posi-
tively on them. Developments in the society were patterned on natural evolution, behaviours were analysed in terms of material environment, values and morals were explained as relative to physiological and social needs and the individual conduct was theorised as the pursuit of naked self-interest. Statistics came to be used as the only scientific means to validate a proposition. Social scientists, led by the econo-
mists, boasted of their disciplines as “positive sciences” and deliberately distanced themselves from traces of nominative
positions. However, as developments unfolded themselves the social scientists, particularly the economists were over- whelmed, to their utter dismay, by the inapplicability oftheir
“theoretical generalizations” to the changed world in general, and the Third World in particular. They were forced to invent what is euphemistically called prescriptive economics. Yet they still stuck to the old and antiquated perception ofreality, a stubborn rejection of supernatural and spiritual aspects of social phenomenon.
The above stated methodological position led to ever increasing dismemberment of reality. As scientists probed deeper and deeper they tended to concentrate on segments and thus lost sight ofthe whole. Analysis become the sine qua
non of scientific investigations. They conceived this world as
neutral, shorn of any purpose, self-moving, destroying and replenishing itself continuously through forces generated out of the very process itself. This is an inhuman world, a cruel one, where survival of the fittest rules. On account of this paradigm, the scientific world has landed itself into a blind alley, where a series of new discoveries in physics and its allied branches seem to shatter the old notions. As an extension of the natural sciences, the social sciences have tread the same path. In political science, sociology, social psychology, and more prominently economics, society has been conceived as a purposeless, amoral entity where indi- viduals are motivated by their desire for aggrandisement. In economics, efficiency has supplanted humaneness, demand, the reflection of money power, has replaced needs. Since the unrestricted display of individual motives, results inevitably in irreparable social damage, that may be controlled by state intervention. Economic analysis offers a classic example of the dismemberment of reality, where micro-analysis of eco- nomic agents was carried to its logical absurdity. When aggregative economics was fashioned, it had the same im- print with non-economic reality treated as exogenous fac- tors. That man does not experience only hunger, sex or otherwise, is ignored for the convenience of scientific rigour. Elegant diagrams are constructed, obtuse mathematical calculations are summoned, and rigorous statistics are tailored to the end.
But the western scientific community has always shield away from an explicit statement of its cultural underpin- nings. Natural scientists could do away with it without inviting much immediate trouble, for dismemberment of reality or analysis helped them in discovering what Russell calls “technical truths”. The discovery of “technical truths” has benefited man in a big way. It has led to an unprecedent- ed harness of the powers of nature to technological advance- ment, to the enrichment of life, to matchless expansion of life amenities. Its deficiencies impinge upon humanity as a delayed reaction and only indirectly. But the activities of the social scientists bring these harms closer. Their ideas shape society, mar or make its health. Elated by the impressive developments in natural sciences, and almost submerged by their rigour and logic, they fell in line with their methodo- logical positions. As a consequence, they pronounced their own disciplines as “positive science” and concealed, albeit less successfully, their cultural assumptions. Two of these assumptions have played havoc with the validity and useful- ness of social sciences. First, is the arrogant ethnocentricity ofWestern social scientists. Historians considered Europe as the centre of all civilizations, all history. They classified civilizations with reference to Europe, judged their rise and fall on Western standards, and tried to peg in all cultures into a Western hole. Psychologists, such as Sigmund Freud, regarded Western individual as the prototype of all human beings. He borrowed terms from Greek mythology, and generalised from selected case histories picked up from the Old Testament as representative of all human beings. Eco- nomists perfected their generalizations within Western frame- work: their consumers and producers were born in European
culture and reacted to a set of stimuli conceived in a parti- cular environment, but were mysteriously made universal. Some took a step further and maintained that all deviations from a Western model inhibits growth and needs correction. This ethnocentricism has distorted reality and made social science totally out of tune with other societies and cultures. It has further led to the false belief that their generalizations had a universal scientific validity. The second assumption is, that social science is “neutral” and “positive” since “man” its
subject matter is “amoral” or what is worse an “egoist”. Hence, the best course of action to adopt is “efficiency”. The damage done by “efficiency” criterion may be minimized only by the state as an agent of society. These underlying assump- tions have influenced, largely, the choice ofdata, its order, its interpretation, the adoption of techniques, the construction of theories. All these are custom made to the general percep- tion of reality, to the paradigm, as it were. Even at the preliminary state ofhypothesis formulation, the macropara- digm is kept in view. When despite these scientific condi- tions, particular discoveries conflict with the ‘general per- ception, nobody dares to revise the paradigm, rather the discovery is itself remade.
The Islamic methodology is characterized by its explicit statement of the macroparadigm, or perception of reality. All through history, Islamic researchers, in Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics, Botany, Geography, Astronomy, Medi- cine and Law, Social Studies, Political Analysis and, etc. made explicit value assumptions and carried it through their analysis. They were never ethnocentric in science or re- search but stuck to a certain perception of the reality and values derived therefrom. Their perception of reality was derived from the fountain heads of Islam, the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
The most important concept is the unity of this Reality. The entire universe has been created byAllah (S.W.T). His
Glory and Power, Munificence and Mercy permeate all man- ifestations of Reality. Nothing moves and develops, of its own accord. The laws ofAllah governthis universe. It is an ordered universe, a cosmos. All its pieces are finely tuned to the ultimate Reality. And it is a purposeful universe with an underlying moral intent. Allah (S.W.T) created this universe in manifestation of His Glory, and each minute particule of it, is in constant praise ofHim, and positive sign of its Creator and Master. That iswhy He exhorts man to study, probe and investigate each segment of Reality to discern His signs. In His Mercy, He has made the vast treasure of energy and resources lying there accessible to human being and benefi- cial to his needs. The following verses are relevant:
“He created theHeavenandtheearthintruth:Hemakes the Night overlap the dayandthe day overlap the Night. He has subjected the sun and the moon (To His Law). Each one follows a course for a time appointed. Is not He the Exalted in Power- HeWhoforgivesagainand again?”
(al-Zumar, 39:5)
“Allah is the Creator ofall thingsandHe is the Guardian and Disposer of allaffairs.”
(al-Zumar, 39:61)
“(And,that it is a purposeful universe): OurLordnot for Naught Wast Thou Created(all)this. Glory to Thee! Give
us salvation from thepenaltyof the fire.”
(all -‘Imrãn, 3:1991)
In a frequently cited verse of the Qur’an the purpose of the creation of mankind has been epigrammatically put thus:
“Ihave only created Jinns and men, that they may serve me”.
(al-Dhãriyãt, 51:56)
This magnificent universe is the blessing ofAllah (S.W.T). it is kind and humane, its forces have been so designed as to provide irrefutable evidences of His Mercy in the service of mankind.
From this paradigm follows the basic methodology adopted by the Islamic researcher, the methodology of syn- thesis. During the course ofinvestigation, it links parts to the whole, seeks the overall purpose in segments and fits the pieces of reality into the total design. He knows that the individual truth reflects the Cosmotic truth, subserves the intent and design ofthe Creator. Parts ofreality are meaning- ful only when they are perceived as parts and not the whole. An event, per Se, is meaningless unless linked to the whole and perceived as a pause in the continuum. Synthesis, therefore, restores to aspects of reality, to individual events, their legitimate position in the scheme of the universe — a
position lost in the pursuit of analytical rigour.
The synthesising process turns the manifestation of reality into a purposeful universe, designed with a moral intent, and the interplay of forces are transformed from a
brute and heartless Nature to an immensely munificent one. To an Islamic researcher Nature does not fight man cease- lessly but subserves him.
Synthesis, however, does not mean the negation of analysis. Analysis is the need of human mind since it has certain built-in limitations. It cannot fully grasp the reality unless it is vivisected into convenient pieces. A micro level exploration is also necessitated by frequent requirement to study the behaviour of natural forces, events and episodes. The usefulness of this approach has been demonstrated by the impressive scientific advances. However, the apparent success of this method has eventually distorted reality since it has delinked the pieces from the whole. In the area of social sciences the attempt to divide reality into economic, political, sociological & etc. overlooked the fact that all these aspects of the society are inalienably knit together. Their experience with the outside human world notwithstanding, they re- lished the alleged scientificity of these divisions.
Experimentation, empirical investigations and micro- analysis when and if, linked to total reality are raised from more acquisition of knowledge to the status of a mission. To study the small in order to seek the Wisdom and Mercy of the Great, to experiment with the elements to seek the bounties ofAllah and find His Signs have been the moving spirit of all Islamic researchers. In this endeavour he does not lose the sight of the wholeand does not distort reality. TheQur’an has repeatedly emphasised these activities and regards them as the legitimate means of understanding the Creation and through it Allah’s Wisdom and Power.
“Ifye would count up the favours ofAllah Never would ye be able to number them, for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
(al-Nahl, 16:18)
“Say: Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation: So will Allahproduce a later creation: For Allah has power overall things.”
(al- ‘Ankabat, 29:20)
“Then contemplate (0 Man) the Signs of Allah’s Mercy: How He gives life to theearth afterits death.”
All through the history of Islamic research, experimen- tation and empirical investigation were pursued with vigour and fired by a mission to please Allah (S.W.T) and serve mankind. The latter purpose is the cornerstone of Islamic research structure and helps define, in conjunction with former, the scope and goal of scientific endeavour, in general,
and social phenomenon in particular.
The exploration of this world through experimentation to the benefit of mankind, to seek the sustenance and comforts of life has been strongly recommended by the Qur’an.
“Andseek of the bounty of Allah.”
(al-Jumu’ah 62:10)
And since according to Islam, all mankind is the family of Allah (S.W.T), this activity has to be to the benefit of all mankind. Knowledge is and should be so sought as to prove its blessing for all.
From this moral imperative it follows that the Islamic researcher in any field of research should be governed by a singularly significant rider on the validity of this activity.
Scientific research in general and social research in particular should not directly, or in consequence, be harmful to the social and moral fabric of the humanity. The basic Islamic principle in Islamic jurisprudence is stated thus:
“There is no inflicting on tolerating harm in Islam”. Thus, researches/experiments/discoveries or social engi- neering & etc. that damage the foundation of the society are automatically eliminated or minimized in this research cul- ture and the specific paradigm.
The classification of the conditions ascribed to the Divine Law by such Islamic thinkers as al-Ghazzali and al- Syatibi and a host of earlier Islamic jurists-into necessities, conveniences and comforts signify the overall objective of all pursuit of knowledge and above all the acquisition of the highest form of knowledge, the Syari’ah itself.
From the above discussion, it is clear that those who confuse Islamic research methodology with mere deductions from the general principles enshrined in the Qur’an and
Sunnah and their application to changing conditions and reinterpretation are gravely mistaken. For this scientific culture both deduction and induction are the Gifts of Allah (S.W.T): both are vital to the development of science and research, except that it takes faith and moral imperative as,
a priori. as things given, and as frontiers that determine the
approach to reality and define its goals.
The Islamic research methodology defines the approach, the perspective of Reality: it assigns a purpose to the acqui- sition of knowledge to seek the Reality, recognise Allah (S.W.T) and promote the good of humanity.
This view substantiated by the historical fact that experimentation, empirical investigation were refined, ex- tended, and remoulded into relative perfection by the Muslim scientist, alchemist, astronomers, geographers, medical ex- perts, pharmacologists and others. Europe borrowed these techniques from the Muslims but claimed these techniques and tools as its own and original gifts to mankind. But these gifts were subsequently turned into a deliberate al~temptat the distortion of total reality.