While listening to his Kuliah Online via Radio MISG, I browsed through the speaker’s blog. This particular entry attracted my attention.
The author insisted that readers do not compare articles to books. Articles are limited in its content, while books provide more space for detailed elaboration. The author, who is also a good friend, went on to say,
“Jika mahu salah menyalahkan sesama kita, janganlah fenomena ini dibebankan ke atas penulis artikel.”
I want to take that point a bit further than what was probably originally intended by my friend.
I agree wholeheartedly that readers or commentators should not blame authors for what they write. That is why I generally disagree with the banning of books or speakers, or, for that matter, the silencing of opposition. We should read and listen to as many views as possible and make up our own mind. In Malaysia, printing of Malay language Bible should be allowed, and we should also be allowed to listen to all leaders from opposition parties. Materials should be made available to the public so that they can decide what to read or hear.
The usual problem I encounter when talking to people is that they feel they do not have ‘enough knowledge’ to decide what is right and what is wrong. I haven’t a clue when anyone will have ‘enough knowledge’. When will an ustaz ‘know enough’ such that the ustaz is always right? When will a political leader ‘know enough’ such that he knows – and can centrally plan for – what is best for society as a whole? When will anyone ‘know enough’?
Libertarians generally take human beings as reason-guided creatures. Present to the people sound arguments, and they will judge rationally. There is no need to plan from the centre. Central planning only takes away our ability to use our mind – the most valuable gift from God. The principles of market solutions, personal choice, small state, democracy, etc, are mainly natural outcomes of this optimistic view of mankind as reason-guided creatures.
On the other hand, heavy-handed principles like absolute obedience and unquestioning serfdom take away from mankind their ability to think. When people stop thinking and stop questioning, totalitarian leaders will have a party.
So, sapere aude!
———-
Talking about freedom of speech, agaknya arahan melarang myself daripada dijemput untuk bercakap masih valid ke? (kena gam!) I thought the problem of ‘tak ada permit’ only exist in Malaysia. Rupa-rupanya bawak sampai ke UK!
———-
Filed under: Freedom & Liberty, Personal
Salam
Thanks brother for your elaboration.
We as human being subscribe ourselves to rationality. That distinguishes us from other beings. But those who feel very much insecure of what they think and feel, will start to behave irrationaly and even worse start to prevent others to exercise their humanity. For God sake.. I am sick with the whole of those..
Sounds like secularism coz secularism assumes all religion/opinions have the same value, or that none do. IMHO, Islam includes as integral to its belief its own correctness and the falseness of other belief systems.
I don’t mean to underestimate your argument. It’s more likely that I’m the wrong one here, but when I read muslim libertarian views, I don’t understand how a society “blown by the wind” will develop values in accordance to what Allah wants us to do.
The nature of entropy and behavioral drift argues that morality and values will naturally dwindle towards the lowest common denominator, that is, western secular-materialism.
*Oops, I don’t mean to sound like a Qutbist, if that’s how it turned out.
Assalamualaikum. abg wan, my name is Nur Asyhraff Mohd Noor, 2nd Med University College Dublin. Currently, I’m working with FOSIS EIRE.I need u contact you on certain matters. I tried to email u through ws@wansaiful.com but failed. can give me your email?my email is acabeire@gmail.com .jazakallah
bangku: I would like to reply to your comment but I am not sure if I understand what you mean by “a society blown by the wind”. Can you clarify first, please?
You may also want to get a copy of James Bartholomew’s The Welfare State We’re In. In the book, he discusses how society prior to centrally-planned welfarism had higher moral values.
I became rather confused when reading the statement that authors cannot be blamed for their wrong “masterpieces”. Can you elaborate more?
Doesn’t it sound fishy about the real truth? Or any one gets fish here? :p
Everybody should take the responsibilty for their own wrong-doings right? Or else there is no justice at all in this world. Gosh, the world is truly unfair..
Well, i confess that i dont have enough knowledge to face a Libertarian who is kinda “extraordinary learned” person. But one thing i crazily want to ask, where is the spirit of “ask the one who knows if u didn’t know”?
Oh, i feel sorry too because sounding like Qutbist.
author should be blamed for their wrong masterpieces. that’s a common sense.
but if there is nothing wrong with the masterpiece, and the reader created irrational argument and bring the thing out of context, then why should the author take the blame?
That’s out of my question. I’m only focusing on this entry and on the statement “authors cannot be blame for their writings”. I just want a clarification on that subject. None than that arrests my attention.
faqir, thanks for the comments. Let me elaborate.
We should not stop people from writing or talking. Rather, everybody should have the freedom to say or write what they want. As rational individuals, we as readers or listeners should look at their arguments, and decide for ourselves how to react. If we disagree, then by all means rebut and counter-argue. But I don’t believe in banning or limiting freedom of speech.
You asked, where is the spirit of “ask the one who knows if u didn’t know”? Of course we can and should ask when we do not know. Kant said, “Have courage to use your own understanding!”. The reason for asking is to gain understanding and the ultimate aim should be to be able to make up our own minds. The Quranic verse should not be used as an excuse to be a life-long muqallid. Rather, it should be seen as a challenge to learn so that we can eventually use our own understanding to make judgements.
I strongly believe that our weakness is in our failure, or our lack of confidence, in making decisions. We take the “ask the one who knows if u didn’t know” injunction as an excuse, not a challenge. We take it to mean “jangan nak memandai mandai”, rather than “kalau dah tau awak tak pandai, maka belajarlah sampai pandai”.
What’s with the apologies for being a “Qutbist”? What is that? Ada ideologi baru pulak ke?
What’s wrong being a muqallid? In any fields there are some methodologies which we should understand first before making our own understanding. For me, i’m a future chemical engineer. I exactly know about what is related to my field.
I just know a little about MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL/CIVIC/ engineerings and etc. so, how can i make my own understanding in other fields if i just ask what i didn’t know again and again without learning formally as what I did to gain knowledge in chemical eng?
Would they (mech/elect/civic eng) take my opinion if i learned their fields with only asking? would i show-off my understanding without considering opinions from them? i think they will laugh at me n take my “understanding” with a pinch of salt.
I didn’t use a Quranic verse as an excuse, but to tell how we people, most of the times must TAQLID to others, not being memandai-mandai in none of our field.
Serahkan sesuatu bidang pada yg ahlinya, bukan kita memandai-mandai saja.
About the writings, the blame is still on the author side.
Qutbist vs Libertarian.
What’s wrong being a muqallid?
If that is the question, then why learn?
Learning n makin our own understanding are two different entities.
I am smiling too…
Well, you must be the first person I met who learn in order to not know.
And, using your own logic, I should also ask if you are an “ahli” in this field. Because, according to your own logic, if you are not, you better not argue. Just obey….. LOL
What do u think about a thousand of ulama’s who are very alim? They are still in Mazhab, and restrict themselves to one methodology of mazhab, not mencampuradukkan mazhab. All of them are very alim, extraordinary learned, but why they restrict themselves to one mazhab? They are muqallids too even they are learned people!
Oh, come on.. What field we are discussing? Should i know any theory then?
I think this topic is just a common sense.
And i am laughing too because a muslim Libertarian argues like this? Haha..
*sigh*, a tripod without one leg will not stand.
One has to be careful to distinguish between right and authority, and in this regard, I think Wan Saiful and Faqir are shadow-boxing on different planes. Free speech is a question of right, but taqlid is an issue of authority.
The “thousands of ulama who are very alim” are free to follow the mazhab they want. It is up to them as they know best based on their own knowledge. They are free to make up their mind and they are free to preach what they believe in. The problem is when someone starts saying “I am superior than you and therefore you should obey me”. Perhaps a bit similar with what you are trying to do now, ie: force others to agree with you.
From your comments, especially in no 10, I take it you believe you must be an expert on a field before making judgement. I think you will enjoy reading several texts that may give you further understanding. How about if you try The Road to Serfdom (Hayek) and The Libertarian Reader (ed: David Boaz). Alternatively, try the many publications available from the Institute of Economic Affairs. If you prefer a more religious take on issues, try publications by Minaret of Freedom Institute and Centre for the Study of Islam and Democracy, or perhaps even the Acton Institute.
If, like me, you believe that “berguru” is far more superior than merely reading books, then try applying for one of the courses exploring classical liberalism, like Freedom Week or those organised by the Institute for Humane Studies.
There we go….. Learn and become learned.
I still don’t understand this thing about being a “Qutbist”. What do you mean?
Come onlaa.. Which Ulama’ said “I am superior than you”? And who said that i was forcing u to agree with me?
You are with your LIBERALISM and let the mazhabi ummah taqlid to their mazhab. Don’t try to force them to agree with u. Indoctrination is against ur manhaj, right? (but not against with my manhaj)
Why don’t you try to understand first about the methodology of ilmu Islam, then by that, you will know what you are condemning.
Oh, you think you are too wise with your “Liberal Indoctrination” and never try to understand what people agree with?!
Is that what you call LIBERAL?
Gosh, very sorry..
One more thing, what is so significant about LEARN in ur manhaj if one could make up his own understanding even their knowledge is zero? You believe that people should make up theirs even they’re not an expert, right? Oh, peminta sedekah pun boleh membuat mazhabnya sendiri, right? n the same goes to penjual ikan, mat rempit, bohsia, bohjan n so on.. Oh, huru hara dunia ni jika Liberalism berkuasa.
A Qutbist is always fighting with a Libertarian. Gosh, you dont know who is ur enemy? Haha..
Oh i forgot. What the heck is all about your mentioned “kitab”? You are a muqallid too? Why don’t u try to make ur own kitab? Isn’t taqlid haram? Isn’t ur manhaj teach u that way?
Gosh.. I think i am stopping here. Your Liberalism has put me off.
Thank you for responding comments from a Qutbist.
I pray you will always be blessed in Liberalism. be a good Libertarian, okay!
salam.
Not sure how the issue of mazhab suddenly arised. The to-follow-mazhab vs not to-follow- mazhab is not an issue I am interested in.
At this stage, I want to quote Ustaz Hasrizal that if “the reader created irrational argument and bring the thing out of context, then why should the author take the blame?”
But, anyway, thanks for indulging. Greatly enjoyed our exchanges. I will leave it there.
I’m very shock viewing “faqir” expressing his opinion like this. So different from the “faqir” I used to know before. Maybe the expression is only the tip of the iceberg. Apa benda la yang berlaku kat UPM tu?
Oh dear! I am amazed as to how Qutb could be posited against Libertarianism. The latter emphasised freedom and Sayyid Qutb expressed this sentiment no differently when he once declared that “Islam is the universal declaration of the freedom of man on earth from every authority except God’s authority.” His writings are replete with calls for the liberation of the entire human race from “man’s lordship over man.”
Even a superficial reading of Qutb would suggest that his insistence that the true Islamic state can only come into being when a strong Islamic community has been established is reminiscent of the libertarian view on the centrality of the moral order to sustain the state as articulated by philosophers from Adam Smith to Alexis de Tocqueville.
The opposite end of libertarianism is totalitarianism, whereas it easier to hijack Qutb for anarhic causes rather than totalitarian ones. That explains why Khawarijis are so fond of him.
Also Wan Saiful, you might want to check out this article on the International Institute of Islamic Thought website:
http://www.iiit.org/news/news_details/default.asp?l_news_id=222
Briefly, Professor Cantori argues that the spirit of both Islam and conservatism are actually opposed to that of the Enlightenment. I would like to hear your views on this, especially since you believe in all three!
Ustaz Hasrizal, I’m being more radical than ever. Liberalism just put me off. So please bear in mind. I prefer Wahhabis than Liberalis. :p
Note that I am not a UPMian.
Hazri, Wahhabis are angry if we call them Wahhabis. So why being too amazed?
Hazri, Thanks for the link. It is a very good speech. But, I hope my latest post answers your question. I prefer not to argue about strictly liberal ideas or strictly conservative ideas. I think it is more fruitful if we define what it is that we believe in, rather than saying I am X or I am Y.
Urgent need for a Ustaz to assist volunteers at National Mosque, KL to explain about the misconceptions of Islam to non-muslim tourist about 1000 of them daily.