Free Thought is Key to Progress

Chowk`s features are becoming completely idiotic. What the hell is the sense of having interact number option when that feature does not work?

Ghussa aside, my post # 30 was directed to poster#26.

Some floating thoughts...

- Does religion actually creates barriers in the process of mental growth ? I do not know if that can be concluded with a definitive answer for all and sundry. I have met many senior scientists who have shared with me their mantra on preserving both. Majority happened to be in their 60s and a few in their early 50s. I am not sure if that was an age factor that made the said individuals come to terms with the needs of their heart and mind.

- From what I have heard about Iqbal`s Jawabae` Shikwah, it was evident that the Jawab was the result of fear of persecution by the orthodox clergy. It was not that Iqbal was in the mood of playing free-thinking games with Allah Taa`la and got the message from the sky to write the Jawab. In the same context, I believe that Iqbal was a free-thinker in his own way. Freethinking does not mean that you are limited to only certain bent of mind. You can be in one mode at one point and time and then you can be contradictory to your ownself in the next moment. From my understanding, free means free - you lean towards the direction your mind wants you to. No obvious or hidden barriers!

- Interestingly, in his own philosophical mode Iqbal also wrote quite a few absurd things on modernism, women and aftermath. Now, a society which lacks the open-mindedness(in terms of enlightenment) will recite his verses subh`oa shaam without realizing what they are lacking.

Some questions:

- Can one equate philosophy of life to free-thinking?
- Can one question the faith and belief of a free-thinker?
- Are the free-thinkers devoid of any core belief ?
- Where do they draw their strength from ?
- Is being a freethinker an asset or a disadvantage depending on the surroundings you are living and breathing in ?

This is one side of the picture.

Orthodoxy is equivalent to lunacy(?). And, lunatics do not care to grasp and listen to others. They want to enforce and enforce and enforce. There ought to be a marked difference between the enlightened and the lunatic. If the enlightened is going to take the same route that the lunatic craves for then there is no difference between both idiots since they are equal to each other and are playing with ``very sophisticated`` concepts.

(*~*)

hamidm,

``...but if it means freedom from all prejudice, then i am afraid we are all a bunch of slave thinkers - slaves to the limits of our own intellect...``

Good point.

Perhaps a better twist would be ``...we are slaves to the content of our consciousness, which is memory``.

There`s the top-level memory of our own life and then there`s the deeper, racial, genetic memory which influences our thinking in a more silent, unknown manner.

hh:

Mind clicking on post # 1 again ? Will only take some muscle movement and you will be there.

Thanks.

Good points and relevant supporting examples.

#26, Ballukhan:
I agree with you. But you are not noticing the vested interests of Masjid which will fight, assasinate and defame any independent thinker.

ZahraJ
#19

**Kindly read my ending question in one of the previous posts. I will certainly appreciate a candid response, if you have the information on that.**

Mind writing the question again?

I would like to point out that similar problems existed in the history of sciences in Christian world when the Church had a stifling influence over the scientific thought. The Church always wanted to ensure that the Bible percepts are saved and this led to the recantation of Galileo. It was only with the enlightment and separation of church from state (and its policies) that nobody made efforts to save the percepts of Bible, rathar now every body started making their own postulations about everything from God to the phenomenon of falling apple. Now, the myth of the ``Given`` was broken. Nothing was considered as certain, so much so that philosophical elites like Descartes had to fall back to his brand of intuitionism to save the concept of ``God`` and arrive at a ``certainity`` and a ``given`` proposition of cogito-ergo-sum.
The same situation is confronting the mullahs: and they still want to save their (interpretation of ) percepts rathar that the corroborated hypothesis of sciences like the Newton`s and Einstein`s theories. They would have destroyed the science laboratories first, if they had the weapons like the Americans because scientific theorizing does not believe in a ``foundations`` any ``given`` propositions and does not confuse the question of ``truthlikeness`` with the ``revelations`` of some ``divine``.
Without secularism no scientific theorizing can successfully take place in any culture, because religious blinkers on the intellect stops the intellect at some proposition which is the ``given`` truth in some religious book.
Scientific theorizing is almost an art, an act of intuition unfettered by the religious dogmas which is constantly being bombarded by the mullahs through fears of retribution by some metaphysical being.

These are my personal views and I do not intend to rake up the Popper-Feyerabend-Kuhn controversy again which is well documented in the western intellectual tradition. Instead I would suggest that whenever there is a conflict between the well established scientific theories and the religious propositions then efforts should be made to save these established theories rathar than the religious propositions. Here we require the effort from the modern interpreters of Quran and Hadith to save the established scientifi theories through suitable (alternative) interpretation of the propositions of Quran and Hadith. This is how the west tackled the menace of the Church which had become very powerful like the Taliban once upon a time.

The terms ``free thinkers`` is on European origin from the time of enlightenment with Voltaire being the most well-known proponent. It described people who disregarded sacrosanct, church sanctions and church dictat in favor of rational thinking in the form of writings, discussions and lectures. Liberals, seculars, socialists, communists, athiests, agnostics are some of the products of free thinking. I think, nihilism and existentialism philosophies are also arising from free thinking, though not sure. Free thinker is mutually exclusive term coined by free thinkers. Their opponents have been calling them heretics, murtids, munafiqs, besharam, be haya liberals etc etc. Anybody in those days of Christiandom and in the Muslim world presently labeling people as free thinker mean agreeing to the label or coming out supporting free thiking. Osama or Fazloo won`t call free thinker, ``Free Thinkers``.

Mr. Gill:

I wanted to be clearer in my previous posts to point out what was exactly missing in the article; but unfortunately I did not have the luxury of time to jot that down. Your recent post provoked me to set aside certain time to do justice to the thought and intent behind the article. None of my earlier comments were personal, but they were genuine concerns of a perceptive and intelligent being. I had expected more depth from the article and you covered more breadth. You also went into territories that weren`t required to be explored at this time. I had and have issues with the examples and pockets you are trying to link together and their context. I would not have spent a single minute on any gibberish, but this is a fairly seducing subject and requires justice. It did not receive that justice! And, as a hypersensitive individual, I could not resist my outburst :)

Just implementing the core principles of free-thinking!

You have misread my posts to some extent under some preconceived notion.

I am NOT defending Iqbal anywhere!

[zahraj’s devotion to Iqbal and his thought is understandable and valuable.]

Why would you assume that is understandable? I do not agree with his philosophy and his leanings 100%.

[I believe I had read some place in these lectures where Iqbal had asserted that we need the western education but the fear is that our youths may go astray. However I could not put my finger to this quote before writing this response. I want to also clarify that my criticism of Iqbal is not based on any malice; I respect Iqbal as a great thinker that he was. ]

I owed you a clarification on my remark about absent-mindedly submitting this piece. I think my post`s 1st para highlights that. Nowhere did you come across as belittling Iqbal. No arguments on that!

[Iqbal, like every great thinker, has not said the last word on any thing. He is not above criticism if such a criticism is without malice. Human knowledge progresses through criticism and debate. So if I am guilty of criticizing Iqbal, it’s not out of malice. He was the greatest Muslim thinker of his time and the conceptual founder of Pakistan. But in my opinion, his religious philosophy has become outdated.]

I 100% agree with your above assertions except for the use of the word ``malice.`` I doubt any reader mistook your words for that. Please heave a sigh of relief!

[zahraj’s observation that I was probably in haste to submit the essay to Chowk is also incorrect.]

I think my above clarification should make you see things clearly. No offense intended but you are reading my responses upside down. Way too much emphasis on assumptions & preconceived notions! Please walk the talk here otherwise you are contradicting your ownself - freethinking! Your use of the word ``also`` is misplaced in the context you have stated; since you are agreeing to 95% of my critique here.

[I had been thinking of this subject for the last several months but could not figure out where to start the essay and how to end it.]

That`s exactly my point in the earlier post.

Regards.

PS: In my ``not so humble opinion`` the article deserves a re-write or a re-arrangement before any continuation effort is undertaken.

............. i still don`t understand what the heck a free thinker is .....everyone is free to think, but everyone is bounded by his or her prejudices ............. that leaves only two types of thinkers: there are bad thinkers, and good thinkers ............ if free thinking means freedom from the tyranny of god, prophets, jinns and hobgoblins, then i guess sameerj is a free thinker.... but if it means freedom from all prejudice, then i am afraid we are all a bunch of slave thinkers - slaves to the limits of our own intellect .......... in any case that is a lot better than being slaves to limits imposed by crazy men who claimed their mothers were virgins or who talked to winged angels in dark caves .................

.............years ago we used to smoke a lot of strange stuff which induced a lot of ``free thinking`` and we came up with all kinds of magical theories that would give razi, sina and iqbal a run for their money ............. too bad i can`t remember any of it ............

freethinker,

OK, we`ll let Mr.Khayyam rest in peace for now...but let me ask you this:

You`re always writing these articles about the Islamic golden period...about great Islamic mathematicians and astronomers. My question to you is...inspite of all these stalwarts, how come the muslims got stuck with the worst calendar of all civilizations ?????

I mean, its 2003 AD now and that is 1424 AH (anno hegiro) in the Islamic world. Hegiro - for Hijra (year 622 AD when Mohammed fled to Medina).

So, apparently its 1424 years since Muhammed`s flight in 622 AD.

But 1424 + 622 = 2046 ...not 2003 ????? ...and thats because the Islamic year is 11 days short of the actual year (11 DAYS!).

...and thats because the muslims use a pure Lunar calendar...to measure the year which is a pure Solar phenomenon!!

- - - - - - -

I suppose you know all this. But I`ll say it anyways.

Every goddamn civilization seems to have figured out how to compromise the Solar and Lunar calendars. For example in India, we have extra months (adhimasa) every 5 years, etc.

It almost seems like this minor effort was too much for the Arab brain...and they remained content with the Simple and ever-increasingly incorrect Lunar calendar.

How come none of the Islamic greats (say Khayyam) never corrected something as fundamental to civilization and daily life as their Calendar ??????


Thanks.

I acknowledge and appreciate the feedbacks from the readers. zahraj’s devotion to Iqbal and his thought is understandable and valuable. I have been reading Iqbal all my life (since my ‘middle school’ days). I love Iqbal and his poetry but I do take issue with his religious philosophy. I have read his lectures also (Reconstruction of Religoue Thought in Islam) and like to believe that I understand them.

I believe I had read some place in these lectures where Iqbal had asserted that we need the western education but the fear is that our youths may go astray. However I could not put my finger to this quote before writing this response. I want to also clarify that my criticism of Iqbal is not based on any malice; I respect Iqbal as a great thinker that he was.

Here are a couple of other quotes from his poetry:

Hum samjhtay thhay keh laaye gi faraghat ta’aleem
Kiya khabr thhee keh chala aaye ga alhaad bhi saath

(We thought that education would usher in prosperity
Alas, who knew that atheism would also accompany it?)
(Baang-e-Dara, p.209 in Kulliyat-e- Iqbal)

Uss qaum mein haiy shokhi-e-andeshah khatarnaak
Jiss qaum kay afraad hon har band sey aazad
Go fikr-e-khudadaad sey roshan haiy zamaana
Aazadi-e-afkar haiy Iblees ki eejaad

(Poignant thought is hazardous for that nation
Whose people are free from all restraints
Though the world is illumined by the God-given thought
Freedom of thought is indeed the work of Satan
(Baal-e-Jibril, p. 168 in Kulliyat-e-Iqbal)

Iqbal, like every great thinker, has not said the last word on any thing. He is not above criticism if such a criticism is without malice. Human knowledge progresses through criticism and debate. So if I am guilty of criticizing Iqbal, it’s not out of malice. He was the greatest Muslim thinker of his time and the conceptual founder of Pakistan. But in my opinion, his religious philosophy has become outdated.

Regarding saminashah’s comment about ibn Sina. I hadn’t forgotten him, he was mentioned in the essay.

I also admit that the essay has barely touched the essentials of freethought. It is difficult to do justice with the subject in a short essay and it was not my intention also. I preferred to give some historical background to free thought
in the Islamic world in order to make it interesting and relevant to the Muslim readership. However, free thought is not relevant only to the Muslim world; in fact it is for the universal humanity. The scope of my essay was however limited. The intention was to underline its importance to us, the Muslims, who are so backward in the modern world.

I appreciate hh for the translation of Iqbal’s verses that I had quoted in my essay.

I believe ironman’s criticism of Omar Khayyam is unfounded.

zahraj’s observation that I was probably in haste to submit the essay to Chowk is also incorrect. I had been thinking of this subject for the last several months but could not figure out where to start the essay and how to end it. There is no doubt that a better piece could be written.

The essay did provoke some interesting responses from the readers and may be one of them would like to take it further by writing an article himself (herself).

I’ve noted the comments by others also including sameerj, Azure, and urstruly but I believe they don’t require any specific comments from me. They’ve added and enhanced the scope of the essay by their comments.

Mohammad Gill

``Aazadi-e-afkar sey haiy unn ki tabahi
Rakhtay naheen jo fikr-o-tadabbar ka saleeqa
Ho fikr agar khaam, tau aazdi-e-afkar
Insaan ko haiwaan bananay ka tareeqa

If a person is forbidden from indulging in free thought, how he can acquire the skills and the right attitude for free thinking, which Iqbal seems to stipulate in his above verses. ``


My friend I believe you are missing the point. What Iqbal is trying to say is that free thinking is only good if it is bounded by some boundries. In case of Iqbal it is Islam. One is free to think, however there are boundries set by Islam and thinking beyond those boundries is forbidden. What I am trying to say is that there are certain orders in Quran that should be followed without question. Scientific knowledge, which is based on sensory perception and mental analysis, will not provide answers.

For example Quran says Allah is one. A limit is set by Allah and thinking beyond is forbidden. This is the ``tadabur ka saliqa`` Iqbal talks about. A free thinker is not bounded by any boundry and will question every thing including his mother about who his father was?

Asfand

hh:

[shikwa and jawab-e-shikwa are two different angles of a `dispute` or an `argument`. when you read shikwa, you side with man (against god) but when you read the jawab, you think that, no, man was wrong, god is right. go back to shikwa, again you will think man is right. so its just the power of his pen and his thought that convinces you. and thats what was intended. ]

I am perfectly clear on Iqbal`s stance, where he was coming from and the ins and outs of Shikwa`h & its Jawab. Still thanks for sharing your take.

Kindly read my ending question in one of the previous posts. I will certainly appreciate a candid response, if you have the information on that.

mohamad

coool article.
but in talk of free thinkers how can u forget ibn sina