The Kassim Ahmad thinking norm
AB SulaimanPublished: Feb 20, 2014 3:37 AM | Updated: Feb 20, 2014 4:00 AM
COMMENT The name Kassim Ahmad first appeared in my mental radar screen back in my school and college days in the fifties and sixties. He had been branded as a socialist and communist at the time when either philosophy was taken as akin to communism. Communism in turn was taken to be anti-god, godlessness, atheism and as a political ideology practicing terrorism.
At the same time and secondly, Kassim was also known to be critical of the Malay hero Hang Tuah, not in him as a person surely, but as the gallant warrior who showed blind and unflinching loyalty to the Sultan - even if he had to kill his closest friend Hang Jebat. Just how could a super hero kill his bosom friend, his own close buddy? Kassim asked in effect, who is the real hero here, Hang Tuah or Hang Jebat?
Thirdly, in the mid-eighties Kassim Ahmad again appeared as the writer of " Hadith Satu Pernilaian Semula " (Hadith a re-evaluation). Here he questioned the veracity, authenticity and accuracy of the compilations of the Hadith (the sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad) made nearly 300 years after the prophet's demise (in 632 AD).
COMMENT The name Kassim Ahmad first appeared in my mental radar screen back in my school and college days in the fifties and sixties. He had been branded as a socialist and communist at the time when either philosophy was taken as akin to communism. Communism in turn was taken to be anti-god, godlessness, atheism and as a political ideology practicing terrorism.
At the same time and secondly, Kassim Ahmad was also known to be critical of the Malay hero Hang Tuah, not in him as a person surely, but as the gallant warrior who showed blind and unflinching loyalty to the Sultan - even if he had to kill his closest friend Hang Jebat. Just how could a super hero kill his bosom friend, his own close buddy? Kassim asked in effect, who is the real hero here, Hang Tuah or Hang Jebat?
Thirdly, in the mid-eighties Kassim Ahmad again appeared as the writer of "Hadith Satu Pernilaian Semula" (Hadith a re-evaluation). Here he questioned the veracity, authenticity and accuracy of the compilations of the Hadith (the sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad) made nearly 300 years after the prophet's demise (in 632 AD).
The issue he raised was this: how could the orally transmitted records of the Prophet's words and deeds be accurately recorded after such a long orally transmitted (i.e. unwritten) period? Human logic says there must be thousands of inaccuracies and dissonances collecting in between, he contended.
Now and fourthly, Kassim Ahmad has surfaced again (Malaysiakini, Feb 17). This time he reportedly stated that Islam in Malaysia has been abused through a "priesthood caste" system, personified in this country as the ulamas and muftis, and perhaps the multitude of Islamic departments and institutions, like Jakim and Jais.
"This priesthood caste did not exist at the time of the Prophet or the four caliphs. They only emerged about 300 years later by appointing themselves as interpreters of religion for Muslims," he reportedly said.
He noted the adverse effect to the Malays, that "They (Muslims) view their religious leaders like gods and goddesses; that these leaders are seen to be (protecting them) from maksum (sin) and must decide on everything about their lives."
Here in effect he asked: "Why are Malays so dependent on others for their lives. Why can't they determine their own paths? Don't they have the confidence to think for themselves? Don't they have backbones?"
Critical and rational
Kassim Ahmad has been showing a thinking norm and facility that are critical and rational. He does not take any past wisdom handed down to him by his elders without first giving it his evaluation.
On the priestly or priesthood caste for example - did it really create itself? What were its motives for creation? Could it be right in doing so? Could it be wrong? What are the facts involved in the case? How do other great minds see the issue? Only after some strenuous debate and discussion would he accept the veracity and truth of the priestly caste.
I am very much on the side of Kassim Ahmad, not only on this priestly caste issue, but on the thinking method he had undertaken to arrive at this situation, i.e. for his scientific and critical thinking. Why? Because this thinking is predictable, falsifiable, pragmatic, flexible, and is always open to alternative suggestions.
In verbal terms this thinking adheres to the following axioms:
"I don't know what this item or issue is all about. Let me ask from those who might know."
"I think I know what this is, but I still have to find evidence to support my hunch."
"If you don't agree with me, that's fine. So let's go and find out what the general community thinks about it, and from there we'll get a consensus."
This evaluation process is known as scientific thinking. Kassim Ahmad must have given this priesthood caste issue one such scientific evaluation before coming up with his conclusion (which is "Yes it does exist, and possibly causing havoc to the weak, tentative and malleable Malay mind").
Kassim Ahmad’s detractors have predictably been undaunted by his latest tirade. This can be seen from the reactions made by some of them appearing in the readers comments column of the article. I take the opportunity to quote some of them.
"The Quran is to be verified with Hadith and vice versa," says one writer ('Anonymous'). "The authentic Hadith is traceable to the Prophet through knowledgeable, creditable persons 'Isnad' or the unbroken chain of Hadith recorders," he adds. "You cannot interpret Quran without the assistance of Hadith."
Another writer 'faz' states that "Faith is not about what is humanly acceptable, especially so if the subject is the 'Hereafter'. So, Sdr Kassim Ahmad, stick to what you know best which is not Islam."
A third 'Zen' says, "Kassim, do something you know best but please keep out from religion as your intellectual prowess in Islam is very very low. Sorry to say this. I thought after a long absent from the 'Hadith controversy' you have studied and understoodd Islam but sad to say you are still like in the 1980s still led astray by the Great Satan."
I can't help noticing the points just made:
One says that there is nothing wrong with the 300-year separation between the time of Prophet Muhammad and the Hadith; two, that faith is not subjected to human rationality; and three, that those with low knowledge about Islam should not make comments on it.
These are the arguments normally made by the protectors of Islam. They reveal the normal or traditional thinking mode, i.e. one that is rigid, inflexible, judgmental, and sometimes coercive. They defend all wisdom handed down from their elders without any evaluation and defend the status quo. I'd add that they have a pre-occupation with the Hereafter. This thinking mode is not at all scientific. It is known as traditional thinking.
In any debates or discussions such norms would come out with the following stances:
"I am right, you are wrong."
"As I am right you are therefore wrong… So don't argue with me."
"If you are not with me then you are against me."
They all say much the same thing, the inflexible and coercive 'might is right'. On this last point (that might is right) and as if on cue, Malaysiakini reported on Feb 19 that "the Islamic Development Department (Jakim) wants action to be taken against Kassim Ahmad.
I wish to make one final comment on this issue. It is that there are many thinking modes, two of which I have mentioned above, the scientific and the traditional. In the history of mankind, the human civilisation has moved forward based on scientific thinking, whether we realise it or not. The future of mankind too, depends on this thinking.
I believe Kassim Ahmad has been adopting this mode throughout his life. I urge the Zens and the fazs and the various organisations to determine their own thinking mode first of all when pondering over this issue again.
____________________________________________________________
AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human foibles, and has written and published a book ‘Sensitive Truths in Malaysia’.
At the same time and secondly, Kassim Ahmad was also known to be critical of the Malay hero Hang Tuah, not in him as a person surely, but as the gallant warrior who showed blind and unflinching loyalty to the Sultan - even if he had to kill his closest friend Hang Jebat. Just how could a super hero kill his bosom friend, his own close buddy? Kassim asked in effect, who is the real hero here, Hang Tuah or Hang Jebat?Thirdly, in the mid-eighties Kassim Ahmad again appeared as the writer of "Hadith Satu Pernilaian Semula" (Hadith a re-evaluation). Here he questioned the veracity, authenticity and accuracy of the compilations of the Hadith (the sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad) made nearly 300 years after the prophet's demise (in 632 AD).
The issue he raised was this: how could the orally transmitted records of the Prophet's words and deeds be accurately recorded after such a long orally transmitted (i.e. unwritten) period? Human logic says there must be thousands of inaccuracies and dissonances collecting in between, he contended.
Now and fourthly, Kassim Ahmad has surfaced again (Malaysiakini, Feb 17). This time he reportedly stated that Islam in Malaysia has been abused through a "priesthood caste" system, personified in this country as the ulamas and muftis, and perhaps the multitude of Islamic departments and institutions, like Jakim and Jais.
"This priesthood caste did not exist at the time of the Prophet or the four caliphs. They only emerged about 300 years later by appointing themselves as interpreters of religion for Muslims," he reportedly said.
He noted the adverse effect to the Malays, that "They (Muslims) view their religious leaders like gods and goddesses; that these leaders are seen to be (protecting them) from maksum (sin) and must decide on everything about their lives."
Here in effect he asked: "Why are Malays so dependent on others for their lives. Why can't they determine their own paths? Don't they have the confidence to think for themselves? Don't they have backbones?"
Critical and rational
Kassim Ahmad has been showing a thinking norm and facility that are critical and rational. He does not take any past wisdom handed down to him by his elders without first giving it his evaluation.
On the priestly or priesthood caste for example - did it really create itself? What were its motives for creation? Could it be right in doing so? Could it be wrong? What are the facts involved in the case? How do other great minds see the issue? Only after some strenuous debate and discussion would he accept the veracity and truth of the priestly caste.
I am very much on the side of Kassim Ahmad, not only on this priestly caste issue, but on the thinking method he had undertaken to arrive at this situation, i.e. for his scientific and critical thinking. Why? Because this thinking is predictable, falsifiable, pragmatic, flexible, and is always open to alternative suggestions.
In verbal terms this thinking adheres to the following axioms:
"I don't know what this item or issue is all about. Let me ask from those who might know."
"I think I know what this is, but I still have to find evidence to support my hunch."
"If you don't agree with me, that's fine. So let's go and find out what the general community thinks about it, and from there we'll get a consensus."
This evaluation process is known as scientific thinking. Kassim Ahmad must have given this priesthood caste issue one such scientific evaluation before coming up with his conclusion (which is "Yes it does exist, and possibly causing havoc to the weak, tentative and malleable Malay mind").
Kassim Ahmad’s detractors have predictably been undaunted by his latest tirade. This can be seen from the reactions made by some of them appearing in the readers comments column of the article. I take the opportunity to quote some of them.
"The Quran is to be verified with Hadith and vice versa," says one writer ('Anonymous'). "The authentic Hadith is traceable to the Prophet through knowledgeable, creditable persons 'Isnad' or the unbroken chain of Hadith recorders," he adds. "You cannot interpret Quran without the assistance of Hadith."
Another writer 'faz' states that "Faith is not about what is humanly acceptable, especially so if the subject is the 'Hereafter'. So, Sdr Kassim Ahmad, stick to what you know best which is not Islam."
A third 'Zen' says, "Kassim, do something you know best but please keep out from religion as your intellectual prowess in Islam is very very low. Sorry to say this. I thought after a long absent from the 'Hadith controversy' you have studied and understoodd Islam but sad to say you are still like in the 1980s still led astray by the Great Satan."
I can't help noticing the points just made:
One says that there is nothing wrong with the 300-year separation between the time of Prophet Muhammad and the Hadith; two, that faith is not subjected to human rationality; and three, that those with low knowledge about Islam should not make comments on it.
These are the arguments normally made by the protectors of Islam. They reveal the normal or traditional thinking mode, i.e. one that is rigid, inflexible, judgmental, and sometimes coercive. They defend all wisdom handed down from their elders without any evaluation and defend the status quo. I'd add that they have a pre-occupation with the Hereafter. This thinking mode is not at all scientific. It is known as traditional thinking.
In any debates or discussions such norms would come out with the following stances:
"I am right, you are wrong."
"As I am right you are therefore wrong… So don't argue with me."
"If you are not with me then you are against me."
They all say much the same thing, the inflexible and coercive 'might is right'. On this last point (that might is right) and as if on cue, Malaysiakini reported on Feb 19 that "the Islamic Development Department (Jakim) wants action to be taken against Kassim Ahmad.
I wish to make one final comment on this issue. It is that there are many thinking modes, two of which I have mentioned above, the scientific and the traditional. In the history of mankind, the human civilisation has moved forward based on scientific thinking, whether we realise it or not. The future of mankind too, depends on this thinking.
I believe Kassim Ahmad has been adopting this mode throughout his life. I urge the Zens and the fazs and the various organisations to determine their own thinking mode first of all when pondering over this issue again.
____________________________________________________________
AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human foibles, and has written and published a book ‘Sensitive Truths in Malaysia’.
View Comments0