Systematization of "the Thought"

When is the Thought Systematized?

It is systematized when it gets a methodical characteristics, and the opponent(s)’ arguments are falsified.

Methodical thinking occurs when the thought gets the characteristics of internal consistency. Internal consistency depends, for the most part, on the accumulation of knowledge within the process.

Society as a whole is responsible for solving the problems of thought. If the scholars make the required efforts, then this responsibility vanishes. But it is again society’s responsibility to raise the scholars. If the society do not fulfill its responsibility as required, both the knowledge level and quality of scholars are low. The best-known way of raising the level of knowledge is, no doubt, to invest in education. When the society as a whole focuses on this point, then the knowledge level increases. 

The falsification of opponents’ arguments, is, on the other hand, an essential condition for a future success of Muslim Thought. This requires first to settle account with the dominant paradigm of the age. For example, Muslims of classical era were aware of the requirement of facing with Greek philosophy, and managed to triumph over it within a few century. So, the Greek philosophy could not get the popularity it had gained in first three or four centuries of classical period once more again. Today, Contemporary Muslim Thought must settle account with modernity (and postmodernity) which represents the dominant paradigm of the age, and triumph over it. Otherwise, the thought can not be systematized and accordingly Islam will not achieve global success.

This requires, no doubt, to have a good grasp of modernity (and postmodernity). So there is no excuse for us not to know both competently. The opponents' arguments or the rival ideologies must be known in detail and could be criticized boldly. A sentence uttered by Al-Ghazali in settling account Greek philosophy gives clue as to how this task will be performed. Having finished the three-year tiring activity of reading, reosoning and reconsidering, he says that he decided to write al-Tahafut “only after he came to a conclusion that he understood the books written by Greek philosophers better than their writers.” So, the efforts to settle account with modernity will be successful only if we could have a similar grasp of it. Today Muslims’ knowledge of modernity is insufficient and consequently the “critiques” of modernity is not strong. Moreover, those who started out to criticize modernity are generally impressed by it and become “modernists.” And there is still no evidence for a significant change in this situation. The “apologetic” discourse that we witnessed well at the beginning of twentieth century was replaced by a self-confident language at the middle of the century, but it appeared at the end of century once again and more sophistically in the theories and conceptions of Muslim Modernists such as Arkoun, Hanafi and Jabiri. This clearly shows that we should lay emphasis on the following point: in order to criticize modernity strongly we should first possess sound knowledge of Islam. If the knowledge of Islam is insufficient, we can not triumph over modernity. And what is worse is that those who started out to criticize it may become “modernists.” Therefore, possesing sound knowledge of Islam takes precedence of grasping good knowledge of modernism. Modernity can be criticized boldly and defeated definitely only if this happens. Al-Ghazali did the same thing against Greek philosophy competently in classical era. And Muslim world today awaits the “Ghazali of the Age” who could do the same thing against modernity.