Knowledge

Know this topic well? Help others and get FREE products!

The Qur‘an: an Encyclopedia

The concepts of knowledge and ignorance are much used in the and there are two modes of acquiring knowledge of God. One mode is by observation and reason, and the other is by the soul. The philosophers and theologians have given more emphasis to knowledge acquired by reason, while the Sufis have stressed the knowledge of God via the human soul.

The Arabic root verb ‘to know’ and its derived forms occur in the about 750 times. The is meant to provide truths, which have made an impression on Muhammad’s contemporaries. However, these truths can have an effect on any listener, if only they are repeated constantly and singlemindedly. The repetitive use of the same words drives its message home to the listener, especially if it has great religious significance.

The repeatedly states that God’s knowledge is superior in quantity and quality to man’s knowledge, and that he knows secrets unknown to man (6.59; 11.31). Man’s knowledge is, in any case, derived from God’s, so man cannot know more than God. The angels also can only know what God has taught them. It is only by the will of God that man can know anything from the divine knowledge (2.140, 32, 255).

True human knowledge is connected with religious insight, and so it is the prophets who possess knowledge that comes to them from God. This is not ordinary human knowledge (7.62). Revelation contains knowledge, so the Holy describes itself as a book that God has sent according to knowledge (7.52). Many passages in the equate religious faith (iman) with knowledge (‘ilm) (30.56). Even one’s state of being is connected to knowledge; hence God elevates by degrees those who have knowledge and who believe. Faith and knowledge are connected, so those who believe will come to know (58.11; 2.26) and they will have certain knowledge (yaqinun) of the other world (2.4). Here we are not talking of some vague religious knowledge, but about the knowledge arrived at by believers who ponder and reflect upon the signs of God. The refers to mundane knowledge which is derived by the senses, making the eye and ear responsible for such knowledge (32.9; 67.23; 17.36). There are various shades of knowledge and human perception, and the makes use of Arabic roots that connote these variations in human perception, including ‘/r/f, ‘/q/l, f/k/r, f/h/m, dh/k/r, y/k/n, basr and basir. These levels of knowledge and perception are interdependent: the one does not exclude the other (Rosenthal, 1970:28–32).

Knowledge may be acquired by human action, but God also bestows knowledge directly. When we speak of human knowledge we have to bear in mind, at all times, its distinctiveness from divine knowledge, albeit that even the human knowledge ultimately derives from a divine source. It is the attitude to knowledge which became the driving force for all scholars of the classical legacy to produce works pertaining to every branch of knowledge, be it theology, jurisprudence, mysticism or science. And all these branches of knowledge, whether religious or secular, have been integrated into the metaphysical system of tawhid.

Ignorance (jahal) is the opposite of knowledge, but it is also wrong conduct. Ignorance could either mean the absence of knowledge, or the disparity between a particular belief and reality.

The term jahiliyya appears four times in the and, according to Goldziher (1967), it should be understood as the opposite of hilm (forbearance), not the opposite of knowledge. Rosenthal disagrees, arguing that the term signifies ignorance, not barbarity. It refers to the ignorance of the pagan Arabs who rejected God (Rosenthal, 1970:32ff.). Both scholars are partially correct, as the refers to both meanings of ignorance. The refers to immorality, particularly the uncontrollably violent temperament of pre-Islamic Arabs, and also to ignorance by contrast with knowledge. The meaning of knowledge here should be qualified. We do not mean scientific knowledge, but knowledge as it relates to belief. The pagan Arabs who worshipped idols were ignorant, not merely because they worshipped, but also because they held beliefs about the sacred power of these stones which do not correspond with reality.

The views of Goldziher and Rosenthal could be located within the three meanings of jahal given by al-Raghib al-Isfa-hani, who states:

Goldziher’s view corresponds with the first meaning, and Rosenthal’s with the third. Thus the meaning of ignorance refers to both the absence of the true knowledge of reality and the immoral conduct of the Arabs.

In his ethical treatise, al-Isfahani deals with ignorance under four categories. The third refers to one who is fanatical in believing to be true a false opinion. Such people will never change. The fourth level refers to those who know the truth, yet hold on to what is false. They are like Satan, full of pride, as God states: ‘Your God is the One God; but because of their false pride, the hearts of those who do not believe in the life to come refuse to admit this [truth]’ (16.22) (see also al-Isfahani, 1987:222).

The second meaning of ignorance is evident in the following verse: ‘O you who believe, if an iniquitous person comes to you with a slanderous tale, then verify [the truth of it], lest you hurt a people out of ignorance, and after-wards be filled with remorse for what you have done’ (49.6). The tale-bearer is characterised as iniquitous because the very act of spreading unsubstantiated rumours will affect the reputation of other people, which constitutes a spiri-tual offence. It is imperative that the honour and reputation of every person of the community be respected and pro-tected, and one should either not listen to false rumours or substantiate the truth of such statements, lest one should hurt other people out of ignorance.

As we have seen, knowledge is asso-ciated with faith in one god, so, accord-ing to al-Maturidi (d. 333/944), iman, and tawhid are all aspects of knowledge. The majority of Muslims defined faith (iman) as affirmation by a combination of the heart and the tongue (Rosenthal, 1970:97–108).

For al-Ghazali, there are three levels of knowledge that correspond to the three levels of faith. The faith of the ordinary masses which is based on imitation (taglid); the faith of the theo-logians (mutakallimun), which is based on reason; and the faith of the knowers and saints (awliya’), which is based on the light of certainty (nur al-yaqin). Gnostics and saints possess spiritual insight (arbab ).

There are basically two broad approaches to the knowledge of God: one is by reflecting on God’s signs in the universe, and the other is by knowledge of man’s soul. The first approach is rational in nature, and the second approach requires a supra-rational process that implies direct experience of the soul. A pure soul is capable of this direct, intuitive experience, and thus of knowledge of God.

The Four Means to Knowledge, according to Isfahani, are as follows. First is the knowledge that comes from the self-evident intellect (badihatu ). This can also be translated as ‘innate intelligence’, as it corresponds to knowledge arrived at without deduction and analysis. It also corresponds to alIsfahani’s view of self-evident knowledge (badihiyya). It is present in all normal people, even if there is a disparity between their mental and sensory capacities. Second is the knowledge from perception (nazar), either prior to thought or prior to the senses. ‘Perception’ refers to both physical sight and spiritual insight. It is the ‘close inspection of physical sight and spiritual insight (basira) to apprehend and have a vision of something’. Physical perception is the ability of the masses (zamma), but the elite (khawwas) are capable of both perceptions. The word ‘looking’ in the verse: ‘On that day, faces shall be radiant, looking upon their Lord’ (75.23) comes from reason or the senses. These perceptions are acquired. Third, is the knowledge from hearsay; this knowledge is from blind imitation, and cannot be true knowledge. Fourth, is the knowledge from divine inspiration (wahy), either from seeing an angel (26.193), from hearing the Divine Word without the interference of the senses (as in the case of Musa?) or from it being cast into the mind while awake. This knowledge, of Prophets, sages and witnesses, comes from a Divine Light. It is the highest knowledge, and is referred to as al-mustafad, or basira (alIsfahani, 1987:230).

This fourth means of knowledge is rooted in the soul. It is acquired through devotional acts, but the illumination of the soul comes from God, not man. Man is not the source of it, only its recipient. Although the illumination is an act of divine grace, man is still required to make an effort to purify his soul. Only then will God illuminate his soul, and only then is man able to apprehend God intuitively.

Thus neither reason nor the senses can provide direct knowledge of God. Instead, this must come from an aspect of human nature that is akin to God. That aspect is the human soul. As mentioned, the soul is not the source of illumination, only God is. In Islamic epistemology, however, all knowledge ultimately refers to knowledge of God, even if it is knowledge about ‘other than God’, for no knowledge of God can be gained without an intermediary. The senses are an indirect intermediary, and the soul is a direct intermediary.

The innate knowledge of God is a natural knowledge that does not require any effort or investigation. It is a general knowledge of God that resides in the human soul and innate nature (fitra). We know instinctively that we are created and that there must be a Creator: ‘Since this knowledge is in the soul, the unmindful will know it if they are told about it, and they will know that they are equal to everyone else, as anyone else is equal to them’ (al-Isfahani, 1987:200). This innate knowledge corresponds with the innate intellect, and because of it even the unmindful can come to know God, as implied in the following verses:

Thus knowledge of God’s existence is self-evident. It requires no education, reflection or evidence. It is contained in the innate nature of man (fitra), which is universal and unchanging. However, misleading education can temporarily take away this natural belief in God.

As noted above, the soul is a medium of higher knowledge. If it is illuminated, it will enable its possessor to gain intuitive knowledge of God. The illumination comes from God in the form of a Divine Light. The soul’s knowledge is the key to knowledge of God, and the soul’s ignorance is the key to ignorance or forgetfulness of God (al-Isfahani, 1987:76). To support this idea, al-Isfahani cites the following verse: ‘Be not like those who forgot Allah, and so He made them forget themselves’ (59.19). Furthermore, he states:

Thus the soul is the key to an understanding of the world, and through the world, we understand God as the Creator. As a microcosm of the world, man is a mirror that reflects the realities of the world, which in turn are indications of the realities of God. This is knowledge of God through the cosmos. The other means of knowing God is through the soul, from which one arrives at an intuitive knowledge of God. These two methods are not mutually exclusive; they both lead to knowledge; one is direct, via the soul; the other is indirect, via the senses.

For al-Ghazali, the discipline of the soul is the key to intuitive knowledge of God. This discipline includes moral action and Sufi meditation. Al-Ghazali said: The knowledge of God is the end of every cognition and the fruit of every science (‘ilm) according to all schools of thought’ (Rosenthal, 1970:142). But to know God, you have to know your soul. ‘The soul is the heart which you identify with the inner eye (‘ayn al-batin) and is your internal reality…. Knowledge of its reality and its qualities is the key to the knowledge of God’ (Field, 1991:124–6). This knowledge of the soul leads to the direct apprehension of God. This is the highest knowledge, known as mukashafa (literally ‘disclosing’). Prophets and saints possess this knowledge, and it is the knowledge of the illuminated soul, coming to man only through divine inspiration (Bin Ismail, 2002:33–45).

For both al-Ghazali and al-Isfahani, knowledge is associated with light, and they base their views on certain verses. The states that people dispute about God without knowledge, guidance or an illuminating book. The latter is the which provides the light of religious insight (31.20). Elsewhere in the is the statement that God guides to his light (nurihi) whomsoever he wills (24.35) (Rosenthal, 1970:157). The Verse of Light itself reads as follows:

The Verse of Light refers to the light of religious knowledge that God transmits to prophets and believers. It also refers to the Sufi doctrine of God as the prime Light and Source of all being, life and knowledge.

Al-Isfahani states:

The expression ‘light upon light’ refers to the effect of the light of the upon the light of the intellect. These two lights illuminate each other, and are mutually related. This mutual illumination corresponds to al-Isfahani’s view about the mutual relation between reason and revelation. In support of his perspective of light as a source of knowledge, alIsfahani cites the verse ‘Indeed, a light and a clear book has come to you from Allah’ (5.15), and other verses that concur (5.15; 6.122; 42.52; 39.22; 24.35).

Al-Isfahani and al-Ghazali agree that the illumination of the soul comes from the divine source of light. The light is cast into such believers as have a sound heart and are possessed of spiritual insight (basira), enabling them to directly apprehend the realities of all things, including God. Such people can acquire knowledge either by observation or by spiritual insight. The spiritual insight of God is immediate and direct. It is intuitive, not mediated by the senses but through the soul, which is illuminated by the Divine Light.

A fundamental difference between alIsfahani and al-Ghazali is that, for alGhazali, the Divine Light is the only real light, from which all lights and illuminated beings emerge. All the other lights are metaphorical lights and manifestations of the Divine Light. For alIsfahani, however, the Divine Light illuminates all realities, including the intellect and the They are all created by God, through his light, but not through a process of Neoplatonic emanation.

Bin Ismail, M.Z. (2002) The Sources of Knowledge in Ghazali’s Thought, ed. A. Razak, Kuala Lumpur: ISTAC.

Paris, N.A. (trans.) (1962) The Book of Knowledge, Lahore: Muhammad Ashraf.

Field, C. (1991) The Alchemy of Happiness, Lahore: Muhammad Ashraf.

Goldziher (1967) Muslim Studies, Vol. 1, London: George Allen & Unwin.

al-Isfahani, R. (1987) ila mkarim Cairo: Dar al-wafa’.

——(1988) Tafsil wa tahsil ed. A.Najjar, Beirut.

——(n.d.) mufradat alfaz ed. Nadim Beirut: Dar al-fikr.

Mohamed, Y. (1996) Fitrah: The Islamic concept of human nature, London: Taha Publishers.

——(2004) The Path to Virtue, Kuala Lumpur: ISTAC.

Rosenthal, F. (1970) Knowledge Triumphant. The concept of knowledge in medieval Islam, Leiden: E.J.Brill.

See also: fitra; hilm; nafs; nur; revelation

YASIEN MOHAMED