“Ulama cannot be allowed to decide”, writes Zainon Ahmad (The Sun, 15/6/2006). The term ‘ulama’ (the plural form of ‘alim) is an Islamic term which means ‘erudite scholars’. Now, if we take the statement above literally, it means “the erudite scholars cannot be allowed to decide”, which is another way of suggesting “let the ignorant decide”. This is absurd, and we believe that it was not the intention of the writer to suggest that the society be guided by the ignorant. Furthermore, according to the Qur’an and the Tradition, the ulama’ are the heirs of the Prophet, and they are the most fearful of God among His servants. Without the ulama’, who inherited the teachings of the Prophet, who preserved those teachings and then conveyed them to the rest of mankind, who protected them from alteration, corruption and false interpretations, there would be no Islam. That being the case we cannot agree with Zainon, unless he qualifies his statement, saying instead ‘false ulama cannot be allowed to decide’.
There are indeed false ulama, just as there are false prophets. It is a gross injustice to undermine let alone to deny the place and the role of the ulama in the Muslim community knowing their true contribution to the religion of Islam. By injustice we mean a state where things are not placed in their proper places. The Qur’anic term for injustice is ‘darkness’ (zulm), because in the dark one cannot see. If one were asked to place a thing in its proper place while in darkness one would inevitably misplace it. Injustice is a state caused by the ignorance of the right and proper place of things. Worse still it is caused by what Professor Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas calls ‘confusion and error in knowledge’. Ignorance, by which we mean the absence of knowledge, is easy to remedy simply by imparting knowledge. A confused person is more difficult to deal with because he is not simply ignorant. He knows some truth, yet what he knows is actually a mixture of truth and falsehood, a fact that he either does not realize, or, worse, refuses to admit. A person of this state of mind is prone to making erroneous judgements, which is a manifestation of injustice. His injustice is the result of wrong judgement, which in turn renders suspect his knowledge or his moral integrity.
A false ulama, therefore, may be defined as an unjust person, whose judgement cannot be trusted, either because of the lack of intellectual or moral integrity. Trusting and following them would only perpetuate more injustice and corruption. We cannot trust the judgement of the false ulama because their conclusions, upon verification, does not meet the established criteria of knowledge and truth. We also call them false ulama when their conduct does not reflect the virtues of the Prophet, because they are supposed to be the heirs of the prophets. A word of caution however: it does not mean that one should expect them to be free from intellectual or moral mistakes because that is impossible. To make mistakes is human, but to insist on those mistakes is satanic.
What we have discussed so far alludes to the necessary relation between justice and knowledge. Justice is the law of nature, meaning, it is everybody’s yearning. Injustice is its complete opposite that even a barbarian abhors. Attacks made by certain quarters in the society on the so-called ‘ulama’ stems from certain dissatisfaction towards the latter’s statements and conduct. We are not to comment on those issues here but to remind the parties involved of the real problem so that a true solution may be worked out. We said ‘the so-called ulama’ because the title (and with it the resposibility) given by the ignorant and confused society to those individuals who are not qualified to shoulder that responsibility has caused great damage to Islam. Instead we propose the term ‘false ulama’ so that the true ulama would be protected from undue blame, and the society would not simply succumb to the fatal belief that proper intellectual and moral leadership does not exist anymore.
As to the adamant critics of the ulama they must also know their limits, and be told of their own place. Secular thinkers, writers, and activists must be reminded that they themselves are also part of the problem facing the Muslims today. If they are really interested in solving the problems of the Muslim community the first thing to do is to clearly put forward what they perceive as the cause of the problem and to avoid the lazy attitude of adopting Western solutions to problems which have nothing to do with Islam. If they still believe in Islam and still want to be called Muslims and want to take over the place of the so-called ulama as the advisors and leaders of the society, let us talk about their own intellectual and moral credentials. Before that let us pause a bit and consider this question: can there be a ‘muslim secular thinker’? In the first place it is an oxymoron to consider a secular muslim. We have every reason not to trust a secular thinker, a person who subscribes to the ideals of secular humanism, whose philosophy is antithetical to religions, who thinks he has the authority to give counsel to mankind on religion and life in general.
In the experience of the West with the advent of modern era, secular intellectuals replaced the priests, scribes and soothsayers as the new advisors of the society. It is a phenomenon we may call natural to the West considering the long bitter experience that they have had with the church, leading ultimately to the marginalization of religion and secularization as the philosophical programme. Due to problems related to Biblical hermeneutics, religion is no longer generally regarded as revealed truth. Religion, however, is still seen by some thinkers as ‘useful’ as the basis of morality, though some other thinkers reject it altogether arguing that religion is in fact detrimental to morality. Emmanuel Kant, for instance, maintains that only belief in reward and punishment as taught by religion can serve as the basis of morality. His opponents lambasted this view, calling it outdated and no longer suitable to the spirit of enlightenment which was then dominating Europe. They believed that religion was only useful when human culture was still in the early stages of development because at that stage they were not yet capable of building an exclusively rational moral system. A more radical view proposed by Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud rejects religion altogether. Marx argued that religion was an obstacle to human freedom and to full moral resposibility. Freud believed that morality based on belief in the afterlife was impermanent because that belief would soon disappear with the application and advance of reason. He also believed that because religion forgave sins it was actually the catalyst for immorality.
Now, the question we need to pose to those who want to give advice to the society about religion is this: “what does religion mean to you?” Is it revealed truth? Or it is only a set of beliefs and practices useful to maintal moral order? Or, is religion a dangerous fabrication that has to be eliminated? The second and third answers belong to those who are either not sure of or do not believe in the truth of religion altogether. If the answer is the first, the next thing we need to discuss are the meanings of truth and revelation. In this way one may effectively differentiate the believers from the doubters and the rejectors, and make known their assumptions and presuppositions. The next thing to do is to verify the truth of each assumption and presupposition.
Now we come to the crux of the matter, the one which contemporary writers and journalists would try to avoid because it would expose their true identity. However, it is the duty of the people of discernment to uphold the truth and to protect the masses from confusion and error masquerading as new and progressive ideas. The failure of the so-called ulama to effectively lead the modern society does not mean that their place now automatically belongs to the secular thinkers. For the general public, let them be assured by the wisdom of the Prophet: “This knowledge (of Islam) will be borne by the righteous from every generation, who will keep it from the corruption of the extremists,” and the undue assumption of the liars, and the false interpretation of the ignorant.”