Unity Of Methodology: Islamic Perspective

Methodological Wahdat (Unity) and Quranic Methodology

Ismail Yurdakok [email protected]

Abstract

Turkish female scholar Amiran Kurtkan Bilgiseven (1926-2005) used the concept of ‘methodological wahdat' and studied a unique methodology for years and published his book as "Methodology in Social Sciences" in 1994. But this study was/is not famous for in Turkey and abroad. That's why in the first part of the paper, her study will be summarized and in the second part Quranic methodology will be studied. Saying: "every methods are in need of each other", Prof. Bilgiseven added:"(especially) social sciences are poly-causal sciences. Man is a physical, chemical and biological being and his psychology and sociology are also important. We have not got a scientific data (except Divine texts) on how the universe(s) came existed and how the first man came to the world. Islam encouraged development in science and methodology in its classical history." Prof. Bilgiseven compared the methodologies of Aristo, Ghazzali, Descartes, Ibn Sina, Biruni ("first great methodologist") Ibn Khaldun ('his methodology and mistakes') Bacon (history as an objective eye) Le Play (and Islam) and mentioned Durkheim's 'unity of social sciences in sociology' and 'to mix inductive and deductive methods'. In the second part of the paper, 'embracing of Quranic man empirical and pluralistic methods' will be studied.

The most important aim of Prof. Amiran K. Biligiseven is to show the needing of a methodological wahdat (unity.) She offers a firmly cooperation among methods and ‘not to omit any method, saying “out of date” or “primitive.” She adds: “methodology is not a field of learning that gives some research techniques that consist only shortcut definitions. But it is also necessary to have sufficient theoretical knowledge and reasoning (discernment) ability for confrontation of useful or inconvinient aspects of different techniques and to be able to diagnose their private using fields. We also mentioned the (original) thoughts of some muslim methodology scholars that they were the forerunners for the methodology schools of Western world that these muslim scholars also had got the utmost satisfactory opinions.” (1) Determinism and Social Sciences. Prof. Bilgiseven first investigates that: have social sciences got deterministic rules like physical sciences? She opens a part about ‘the problems (of) that to be able to compare our methodological knowledges of different realities’ (2) And asks if we have got a possibility of deeply research on different realities ‘Is not possible to notice that there is a common foundation for every realities? And every physical or biological events we think

they are determined but they may be that they have got a base of free will and a physiological or sociological event that we think it occurrred by free will but it may be notized that that event depends on a determined base. In the future, when the progresses are appeared for all sciences and (if) we can put abstract relations for every realities it will be possible to mention one reality that we can name it ‘world of being’ without any separation as physical, biological, physiological or social. For example (in the past) physical reality has got different statical and dynamical research fields. But today it is known that these fields have got methods that these methods complete each other and that fields shape a completed form. And since ‘substance becomes energy and energy becomes mass’ appeared as a reality; in spite of the differences of research methodologies and different views of the researched fields; the sameness (the unity/wahdat) is very clear and no place for doubt. We also see this unity/wahdat in biological reality that all of the vital functions and abilities of progress in organical development are in the seed. Research methods about organic progress and research methods about organic static are inseparable and they need to integration. We remember that after the WWII the concept of ‘statical conscious’ was left and ‘psychology of behaviour’ and ‘dynamic of behaviour’ have been given more importance. In sociological reality also; dynamic sociology of 19th century was left and statical sociology method was adopted. Hegel was defending (in his philosophy of history) ‘the society follows only one direction and is influenced by moral factors.’ He gave attention to spiritual factor of ‘changing.’ According to Hegel ‘there is a potential of ability (making) for doing something and social change is to put into execution of this potential. Marx defended (also) internal but material factor of changing and said proletarian revolution would be realized automatically by itself (but with material factor(s). That is methodology changes/has changed frequently in the course of the time. Zimmerman also estimates impacts of internal and external factors to each other and gives an example that much nutrition may gives useful power of the body of a child but when the same person becomes an old man (60-70 years later) this time much nutrition gives harms to his body. That is to explain the changing only with internal or (only with) external factors is impossible. Zimmerman also notes statical sociology system of George Simmel invaded USA academic environments in 1915 and but 1930 everyone forgot that theory. (3) As a result, it can be said that different methods (can) form a methodological integrity. Everything changes in social life everytime but this change occurs in certain boundaries. Even Sorokin says: “Some societies are exposed heavy social changes (that these changes are distant to their ideal cultural line that this (ideal) line has got an harmony between the moral and material targets) these societies are wiped out from the history.” It is not easy to walk on the ideal cultural line (and to live always in ideal culture) for every society. Social change follows a course of fluctuation; on this line sometimes material culture and sometimes spiritual culture take more importance. As a reality statical and dynamical methods complete each other. In this point we can ask this question that: while different research fields of physical, biological, psychological and social of ‘world of being’ form a methodological wholeness; is not it possible to say: ‘world of being’ (with its areas of physical, social and others) puts a methodological common ground.

Prof. Bilgiseven says: “we do not know the previous factors and later factors of every known realities. We can explain the ‘cause and effect’ relations in (only) limited boundaries. For example we have not got any scientific knowledge (except Divine texts) how the universe(s cosmos) came into being and how and when the first man came to this world. The unknown fields (in physical, biological and the other all scientific realities of the sciences) prevent us to find some common and general codes because we have not able to solve all of the problems of the sciences but we inclined to rationalism or empiricism methods in different periods. And thinkers that have defended (only) their methods but they are unaware from methodological wahdat(unity), and the result of this, methodological debates have go on. It is possible to be unsuccessful to know all of the factors in the searching of social reality. Because all of the factors play roles in the result of social reality. That is social sciences are poly-causal sciences and it is possible to put different comments in different ages about cultural changes giving weight to different factors. At this point we can discuss: are social sciences determined (depend on ‘cause-effect relation’) or non-determined? At the first glance, we can think, there are not certain rules (codes) about cause-effect relations in social sciences. But we can follow thinking on ‘man’ that he is either physical and chemical, biological and also sociological, and psychological being that he consists of natural and social elements; and we can ask “is not it possible to fix general characteristics for every periods and every societies that they gained social progress? And then we can go to; -in spite of a lot of differences and poly-causal general rules(laws) in social reality- ‘social reality is a methodological integrity(wholeness) that different methods complete each other.’ But Western cultures have been very late to provide an integrity(wholeness) of method and behaviour to incline sense, thought (rationalism) and experince (empiricism.) For example Orient-Islamic world was very early (from 17th century’s Descartes) to apply rationalist and empiricist methods together; because in the Orient-Islamic world, religious, philosophical and scientific periods (that Comte had put them in a chronological order) were concentric (one within the others) and identicized (from the early years of Islam.) Prof. Bilgiseven mentiones three functions of development in Islamic sciences and methodology; (1) ‘looking for realities’ is a sacred duty (of scholars) to look for hikmat. (Bilgiseven says: ‘hikmat’ is to find the unchanged cause-effect relations in the earth and heavens and some men ‘whoever are given hikmat (wisdom)’ are the most selected persons: “God gives hikmat (wisdom) to whomsoever He pleases; and whoever is given wisdom, has truly been given abundant good” (Quran, 2:269) ) (2) Because of ‘to put/discover realities is a prayer.’ This situation encouraged the sciences and gave broad and unlimited viewpoint for all sciences. An objectivity was gained and this (Islamic) culture developed methodology of (social) sciences. (3) The notion “man ‘arafa nafsahu faqad ‘arafa Rabbahu= Man who knows (better) his soul/body who knows (better) his God” also encouraged the scientific researches (that in that periods, scientific researches were being adopted as a ‘sin against the religion and God ’ in the Western geography. (4) Rationalist method was not used in long centuries between Aristoteles to Descartes (approximately two thousand years in the West, from Aristoteles 385-322 B.C. to Descartes (1596-1650) ) Aristoteles’s Methodology. Aristoteles lived in the 4th century before Christ in ancient Greece. His father was a physician and Aristoteles had seen the influence of medicine on illnesses so he was accustomed to (the method of) observation. Aristoteles also had seen ‘the sensible influences’ were common characteristics in man and animal that we take these with our senses. Man (is influenced by things and events) uses the characteristics of these private knowledges and (can) unify

them and (can) reach common concepts. This general knowledge is a (form or concept of) the human intellect. Man is different (in this point) from animal and man applies deduction method and connects ‘general’ to ‘special.’ In this process, Aristoteles uses passive observation. After seeing his opinions, we can say Aristoteles is a rationalist thinker, but some contradictories are seen in his statements. He accepts God as the First Mover in his book Physics VIII and says the First Mover should be only one (person) and He should be motionless but in his some sentences he mentiones a lot of gods, in his Metaphysics and other books. One of the characteristics of Aristoteles’s methodology that he accepts even ‘the field of ontology is in need of to enlighten with rationalistic method.’ But he says: “sometimes the element of chance may enter into the ‘chain of cause-effect.’ He also says there is a main essence that it has got material and spiritual characteristics; it is an independent factor and the First Mover; it is first in time and knowledge. But Aristoteles also mentiones all of the beings did not exist later, they have not got a ‘beginning’ or ‘end.’ This understanding is the weakest point of Aristoteles’s system and prevents him to put more contributions to methodology. Another characteristics of Aristoteles’s methodology that he mentiones active and passive intellects. Active intellect gives ‘inspiration of thought’ to passive intellect. Active intellect was existent before the body (comes into this world) and it will exist after (the death of the) body. Active intellect is granted by the highest being (the First Mover) and it is a power that is transferred from the highest being that (He) established the natural order. (5) Ghazzali (1058-1111). After his maturity period Ghazzali handed western thought, he criticized Aristoteles and corrected Western thought in philosophical and methodological aspects and influced it very much. Although Ghazzali criticized Aristoteles’s giving an active role to the intellect but he had not neglected the (importance of) intellect and some rationalist characteristics. Ghazzali is a thinker that takes the ‘chain of cause-effect relations’ in an ontological viewpoint and he has got very different opinions than Aristoteles. At first ‘world of being’ is not eternal and he opposes the First Mover, saying “the universe(s) is not an ordinary gathering. An excellent working is seen in the universe. ‘World of being’ is not also eternal; a limited universe in a ‘limited time’ but there are also differences in the relations of cause-effect and factors change according to time and place. A ‘soft determinism’ is noticed in Ghazzali’s thoughts, long ago than David Hume. There is a common foundation -intellect and experiencethat they both unify knowledge and religion. There is a reason for every event (that it occured later ‘non-eternal’) and it must be depend on a reason. Every thing changes and all changes follow each other in the relations of cause-effect. The First Mover of these relations is God. But Ghazzali’s understanding of God is different than Aristoteles’s. Another characteristics of Ghazzali’s methodology is “senses may lead into error but it is possible to eliminate these errors with (the help of) intellect. For example to see a dot like a circle when it is made spun (rotated) around a center. Sense gives a judgement as a circle but ‘intellect as a referee’ denies this. 5,5 centuries ago from Descartes, Ghazzali said ‘it is necessary to doubt’ till certain knowledge is obtained and Ghazzali was the standard bearer of methodological doubt. In al-Munqiz min al-Dalal he writes: “when we learn philosophy and knowledges with the way of methodological doubt, the philosophical books are not harmful to religion and even may be useful that like a money-changer chooses pure gold coin and gives back counterfeit coins to the counterfeiter; scholar also is like that money-changer. ( 32 page not 23) But intellect may not be a referee in metaphysics. Ghazzali studies a methodology that it may/should also comprehend metaphysics. He defends “there is not any boundary between scientific and religious truths and man has got a power that with this power he can reach all of the perceptions” and “intellect (of heart) (intuitive intellect) is in contact, (from) now(on).” (6)

Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes says “different disciplines are in need of using mathematics.” He accepts mathematics is valid method for all sciences. He wanted to put the abstract characteristics of all realities/truths with one method that this method can be applied to all realities. Thus, without breaking methodological wahdat (unity), Descartes put one common method of actual completeness in reality and he could show the existing completeness from the aspect of participation to one method. He comprehended that different realities would become one ‘complete’ with mathematical method and beginning from his studies ‘modern mathematics’ was born in 20th century. He had known that concrete truths were not mathematical abstractions and when he was defending the thought of ‘riyaziya alkulliyya=mathesis universalis’ he did not intend concrete of mathematics but its abstract characteristic that is the characteristic that exists as a method. The most important particular is not to have an intellect but to use it in (a) good (way.) Looking for the truth (it is necessary) to mobilize all of the powers of intellect is goog but iyt is more important to apply true/right method. Man should abonden the prejudice judgements that he learned when he was a child and should leave the laziness of the mind. Apples and Sirs. Descartes gives an example that “Let’s think a basket full of apples, but some of the apples are rotten. How we will choose sound apples from the rotten.” Descartes says: “Pour all of the apples and then take the sound apples to the basket.” Who are Sirs? Descartes says ‘Sirs’ who prevent us from clear evident knowledge and these sirs dominate our intellects. (Do not Let the Others Rent Your Brain) There are outside sirs and inside sirs. Outside sirs are ‘great thinkers’ that lived before our period and ‘old judgements.’ Inside sirs are our own prejudices and our demands, tendencies. Descartes also uses analysis and synthesis as rules. The weakest aspect of Descartes’s methodology is lack of empiricism. Although he accepts passive observation but he is alien to active observation (experience.) Whereas the target of science is to observe the concrete truth according to the theory and to reach general laws that it is possible to apply them on particulars. ‘Love of innovation’ is one of main characteristics of Descartes’s methodology and he wants clear and evident knowledge and accepts this knowledge is an absolute one. But the first and last rings of the ‘chain of causeeffect’ that today we know, but in the course of the time, it appears that that knowledge is not absolute. (7) Ibn Sina (980-1037) Ibn Sina unified the rationalism of Farabi and empiricism of Razi. The first characteristics of Ibn Sina’s methodology is classification of sciences and walking from this point to improve the existing defective reality. The second ‘intuition is necessary for the intellect’ and the third his mixing of rationalism and empiricism. He says soul is not in need of body for comprehension/perception (our souls talked to God before we did not come to this world.) (8) Biruni (973-1051) One of the first methodologists of the world (science) history. The founder of the history of science George Sarton says “not (only) Islamic world but one of the greatest scholars of all times” about Biruni (9) ‘A Universal Genius in Central Asia 1000 Years Ago’ was the cover page of Unesco’s ‘View’ journal in June 1974. 11th century was named as ‘Century of Biruni’ by George Sarton. Biruni believes the fields of scientific research are limitless (no boundary for science) and he adds: “Whenever our means increase for going to the beginnings and ends of the chain of cause-effect relations, it will be possible to find common laws and reach to the deepness of the field of events. When our power increases to advance to the deepness, our demand of penetration gains power. And we see -at this point- ‘the konwledge is one’ ‘it is undivided’ and a ‘love’ happens (for more research) (10) Although Franz Rosenthal claims that Biruni took this ‘sweetness of love for research’ from Indian and Greek thought but this

‘(Islamic) scientific reality’ is an ‘unchanged-belief of Islamic education’ in every periods of Islamic history. Prof. Bilgiseven adds: “Because, three Islamic principles influenced all of the muslim scholars/scientists in long history of Islam; (1) Unity of God and all of the beings are His partly appearance (tajalli) (2) ‘knowledge’ is one of the divine attributes of God and He is omniscient (He has got infinite/limitless knowledge: “Verily Allah is Aware of all things” (Quran, 29:62) ) and to learn knowledge is to know God. (3) God is eternal in the past and in the future that is limitless so (His) knowledge is also limitless. And man whenever he discovers the mysteries of the different realities, he tastes the spiritual delight but after discovering this, he loses this flavour. Because he notices that there is a deeper internal mystery (internal cover/wrap) in the external mystery. The flavour of (new) knowledge is not (only) material benefit, it is a moral pleasure. Rosenthal points this aspect of Biruni’s methodology (11) But the other characteristics of Biruni that -Rosenthal could not notice- is ‘the pleasure of discovering the mysteries of the nature’ is a Divine pleasure. Ibn Sina had given importance the first of the (above three) Islamic principles but Biruni felt especially impacts of the second and third principles and developed his thoughts in this direction. Ibn Sina used to say that ‘world of being’ is an opening of God’s veiled knowledge and His energy and ‘every service’ that is made by knowledge (by scholars/scientists, finding new realities) is in reality, the result and (also) source of moral delight of scholar/scientist that he/she reaches to comprehension/perception of the unity (wahdat.) And ‘the pleasure of distributing of the benefits of ‘knowledge’ to the society’ is also like ‘an abstract pleasure of producing knowledge’ and contains a moral characteristics and is a delight that it has not got tiresome/boresome boundaries. This thought is also appropriate to the principles of modern sociology of knowledge. The other important characteristics of Biruni’s methodology is he does not haste to build theories to reach general laws, but he encourages/does more observations and experiments. He adopts an encouraging method that the search of ‘single’s ‘unique’s and ‘special’s ‘particular’s (Bacon also will adopt this method and will say: “no comment in the collecting stage”) and then Biruni sees a necessity of adopting an induction method and his tendency to expand the field(s) of his research and ‘to put a ‘common knowledge mentality and method’ for every realities of disciplines/to discover the unity of different realities of the disciplines. The third characteristics of Biruni’s methodology is he gave successful examples of comparative method. He showed his struggle for proving actually the unity/wholeness of the disciplines and he succeeded this. He had been busy with physical, natural and (also) social sciences that’s why he could succeed to extend his methodology to all sciences. He was searching (from) the sociological relations between the ruler and the ruled (to) the bigness of the stars (and to) the meridians. And he was defending science(s) and religion have got the same target (to know) recognize the being of God. He was applying mathematics and astronomy on physical geography; psychology on medicine and he was looking at botanical reality from the geometrical viewpoint. He was using common points (of the sciences) as their role of bridge for going to the different realities. So he was a great pioneer methodologist that Islamic and Western worlds used his studies in long centuries.(12) Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406). His magnum opus Muqaddima is a book of methodology that contains methodological principles and judgements taken out from historical realities. He handed history with an observer viewpoint and showed the using of historical method. In reality Ibn Khaldun (is on the way of Biruni in methodology that he) applied/used historical datas on sociology field. He knows it is impossible to repeat the social events in laboratory but it is possible to take ‘history’ as field of research that cause-effect relations may be found that the same conditions put the same results. Ibn Khaldun reads ‘the future’ in the history, sees social change in the past, catches a new understanding of history

that draws a new political (and economic) horizons; he also observes the results of over production, luxury, dissipation in the society and rise and collapse of States/Empires. On the other hand Ibn Khaldun gives much importance to the geographical conditions and defends a powerful relation between geography and civilization level and looks in only one direction at the matter. Whereas social change does not happen only from one or two reasons. There are a lot of factors in the social change. He also claims ‘collapse is inevitable’ that this thought is an underestimation for the role of social scientist and if we look at the Quranic principles if a society goes on in the right way, if a nation follows the Quranic rules (justice, redistribution of revenues, high ethics) this nation’s good position continues. But as a reality Ibn Khaldun shows a new historiography that ‘(especially) real reasons should be observed’ behind of the historical events. He also points ‘researcher must be objective’ and impacts of groubs, sects and ideologies should not influence him.(13) Bacon (1561-1626) British methodology scholar; he also gives importance to the objectivity. His famous example is ‘Ghosts in theatre’ that sometimes we are influenced by the fictitious heros of a play in a theatre that one of the ghosts is doctrines that they should not impress us. He warns about the mistake orientations of ideologies. ‘Auto-control of a researcher’ and ‘an objective eye’ ‘inattentive judge’ are his famous concepts that he says if judge does not give attention the false witnesses, the judgement wil be mistake, a researcher also must act careful in measuring. (14) Le Play (1806-82) is French scholar who saw 1830 revolution and then began to study on sociology –as a mining engineer- he had comprehended the importance of observation and had applied this on social reality. He accepts ‘family’ as a smallest social unit and gives importance to the high ethics of the family. His thoughts about the ethics and labor wages are appropriate to the Islamic rules in general.(15) Durkheim (1858-1917) also a French sociologist, he developed a poly-causal methodology. He says the reason of every social event should be looked for in the past social events. In this method Durkheim wanted to melt all social sciences (economics, law, religion, ethics..) in one system (sociology.) He is the first scholar that applied poly-variable-analysis method and he also used to mentione ‘Leave the Prejudice’ for successful research. (16) Quranic Methodology. Quran employs especially ‘observation’ “Have they not look at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and what things Allah has created...” (Quran, 7:185) and ‘critical thought’ methods. The duty of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) (and the duties of the other prophets) is to criticize the mistake beliefs and behaviours of the societies. “Blessed is He (God) who has sent down Furqan (Criterion Quran) unto His creature (Muhammad), that he may be a warner to the universes (nations)” (Quran, 25:1) Prof. Uzunoglu translates the word Furqan (one of the names of Quran) as Criterion ( ) that it is also interesting that Criterion in the dictionary: “standard of judgement; principle by which sth is measured for value ( ) Quran also narrates us the critical thought of Abraham (the Patriarch) for reaching to the unity of God: “When the night grew dark upon him (Abraham) he saw a star. He said: “This my God” But when it set, he said: “I love not things that set.” And when he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said: “This is my God” But when it set, he said: “Unless my God guides me, I surely shall become one of the people who are astray.” And when he saw the sun rising in splendour, he said: “This is my God. This is greater.” And when it set he said: “O my nation! Assuredly, I am free from all that you attribute a partner to God (as polytheists)...” (Quran, 6:76-79) Quran also condemns the Pharaoh’s fascist administration that does not permit critical thought: “...Pharaoh said: “I show you only what I see. Nor do I guide you except

to the right path.” (40:29) And ‘Giving more examples’ is another method of Quran that we saw above especially Biruni and Bacon had used this method. “Such are the examples We set forth to mankind, so that they may think.” (Quran, 59: 21) “Objectivity” also is enjoined by Quran: “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kindred, and whether it be against rich or poor, for Allah is nearer to both (than you are)” (4:135)

Conclusion Late professor Amiran K. Bilgiseven gave above a lot of and interesting examples for methodological wahdat (unity.) Another scholar Osman Bakar was saying in the same years (1991): “Muslim scientists, in their cultivation and development of the various sciences, have relied upon every avenue of knowledge open to man, from ratiocination and interpretation of sacred scriptures to observation and experiment.” In the paper, we have seen, muslim scholars/scientists employed different methods in one methodology in long brilliant centuries of Islam. Also some Western scholar studied on finding a unique methodology. This topic is not a new, on the contrary it has got a rich legacy in the history of sciences. It is hoped that more studies will be done in coming years.

Endnotes: (1) Amiran Kurtkan Bilgiseven, Sosyal Ilimler Metodolojisi (Methodology of Social Sciences), Filiz Kitabevi (Filiz Publications), fourth edition, Istanbul 1991, p, 1 (2) Ibid, p, 4 (3) Ibid, p, 9 (from Carle C. Zimmerman’s New Sociology) (4) Ibid, p, 19 (5) Ibid, pp. 20-29 (6) Ibid, pp. 29-35 (7) Ibid, pp, 35-44 (8) Ibid, pp, 44-49 (9) Günay Tümer, Biruni’ye Gore Dinler ve Islam Dini (Religions and Islam According to Biruni, Diyanet Yayinlari (Diyanet Publications, Ankara 1975, p, 27 (from George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, I/707) (10)Tümer, p, 51, footnote, 42 (11) Ibid, p, 53, footnote, 46 (12) Bilseven, pp, 49-57 (13) Ibid, 57-68 (14) Ibid, 68-75 (15) Ibid, 81-85 (16) Ibid, 93-99