The Loss of Adab, The Corruption of Knowledge, and The

Moral Dislocation of the Muslim World

By Sayyid Naquib al-Attas

Welcome Address by Professor Naquib al-Attas

Your Royal Highness Prince El-Hassan bin Talal of the Hashemite Kingdom Of Jordan,
Distinguished Scholars, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

1. It is indeed a great pleasure and honour for me on behalf of the International Institute of
Islamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC), to welcome you who have journeyed from all over
the world to gather in conference with us here to celebrate the lasting legacy of this brilliant star
in the firmament of Islamic thought, one who is among the greatest in the galaxy of Muslim
luminaries.

2. He was a man gifted with wisdom and adorned with authentic knowledge. The
illumination radiating from his sagacious intellect shed the light that separated and distinguished
the true from the false, the real from the illusory, the genuine from the counterfeit. His
contributions in the spiritual and intellectual domains of religion, in the realms of Islamic
thought and civilization as a whole, are of such magnitude as to be recognized and acknowledged
by a knowing and grateful Community throughout the ages. He lived at a time of great religious
and intellectual upheaval brought about by the challenges of an alien worldview surreptitiously
introduced into Muslim thought and belief by Muslim philosophers and their followers, as well
as by religious deviationists of many sorts. Ours is also a time fraught with similar challenges
posed by the secular modern Western philosophy and science, its technology and ideology which
seek to encroach on our values, our modes of conduct, our thought and belief, our way of life, in
order to bring about radical changes congenial to the secular worldview. Even though our
present predicament is more serious, widespread and profoundly urgent in nature than that
encountered by al-Ghazali in his time, yet the lesson he taught and the remedy he indicated are
eminently relevant.

3. The rise of the modernist movement, whose leaders were from among the ulama of less
authoritative worth, heralded not so much the emergence of a Muslim religious and intellectual
awakening and sobriety; it marked rather the beginnings of a widespread and systematic
undermining of past scholarship and its intellectual and religious authority and leadership,
leaving us to inherit today a legacy of cultural, intellectual and religious confusion. They and
their imitators and followers among traditionalist ulama, and scholars and intellectuals who
derive inspiration mainly from the West, are responsible for what I have called the disintegration
of adab, which is the effect of the corruption of the knowledge of Islm and the worldview
projected by it, and for the emergence in our midst of false leaders in all fields due to the loss of
the capacity and ability to recognize and acknowledge authentic authority. Because of the
intellectual anarchy that characterizes this situation, the common people become determiners of
intellectual decisions and are raised to the level of authority on matters of knowledge. Authentic
definitions become undone and in their stead we are left with vagueness and contradictions. The
inability to define; to identify and isolate problems; to provide for right solutions; the creation of
pseudo-problems; the reduction of problems to mere political, socio-economic and legal factors
become evident. Pretenders abound, effecting great mischief by debasing values, imposing upon
the ignorant, and encouraging the rise of mediocrity. It is not surprising if such a situation
provides a fertile breeding ground for the emergence of deviationists and extremists of many
kinds who make ignorance their capital.

4. It is with the rise of oriental studies aligned to colonial ideology that we first find al-
Ghazali being insinuated as the efficient cause of Muslim intellectual stagnancy that gradually
set in over the centuries after he dealt a fatal blow to Greek philosophy. We can understand their
antipathy towards al-Ghazali seeing that in Western cultural history every chapter, be it of
logic, of science, of art, of politics and even of theology begins with the Greeks. Greek
philosophy is the very acme of all thought, the consummate personification of reason
itself! Western religious and orientalist thought, their scholarship and even their science have
always laboured against the Christian background of the problem of God: the problem of the
discord between revelation and reason, which is not a problem in Islm. Their claim that
everything philosophical in Islm is taken from the Greeks is far-fetched and must be
rejected. They do not see that many fundamental ideas in Greek philosophy itself were taken by
their philosophers from revealed religion or revelation, or to use ibn Rushds words something
resembling revelation; these ideas did not originate from their intellects or from reason alone
without the aid of revelation. This is why Muslim philosophers, theologians and metaphysicians
did not reject everything Greek in their thought, for a great many things the Greek philosophers
said in metaphysical, ethical and political matters they also found already expressed in the
Qurn. Al-Kinds remark in the book addressed to al-Muta?im that he wanted to complete
what the Greek philosophers did not fully express points to the fact that the Muslim thinkers did
not look upon the Greek philosophers from the position of imitators; on the contrary, even
though they respected them for their rational endeavour and achievements, they at the same time
saw their errors and inadequacy in arriving at knowledge about the ultimate nature of reality
through the effort of reason alone. In fact the failure of the rational endeavour of Greek
philosophy to arrive at truth and certainty in knowledge about the ultimate nature of reality is
proof enough for those with understanding that reason alone without the aid of revelation cannot
attain to such knowledge. It ought to be clear that al-Ghazalis attack on the philosophers, both
the Greek and the Muslim, was not aimed at philosophy as such, that is as ?ikmah,
because ?ikmah as revealed in the Qurn is Gods gift; and ?ikmah is what I think ibn Rushd
meant when he referred to something resembling revelation in his Fa?l al-Maql. The
application of reason with wisdom, not only in religion but in philosophy and the sciences is
commendable. It is significant to note that in the Qurn the major Prophets were not only given
the Book, that is al-kitb, but also the Wisdom, that is al-?ikmah, which I think explains our
accord between revelation and reason. What al-Ghazali attacked was the metaphysical and
religious theories of the Greek philosophers, and their belief and the claim of the Muslim
philosophers with regard to the primacy of the intellect as the sole guide to knowledge of the
ultimate reality.

5. But the modernist Muslim thinkers and their followers and those of like mind became
captive to the subtle deception of orientalist scholarship and echoed their insinuations, and they
blamed al-Ghazali for the degeneration of Muslim thought and action even to this day. They
include not only Arabs, Turks and Persians, but other thinkers from the Indian subcontinent
notably Iqbal who was very much influenced by Western Christian problems of religion and
philosophy and confused them with those of Islm and the Muslims. They set ibn Taymiyyah
up as the relevant leader to emulate and reflected in their thought and action the same
contentiousness and contradictions. They failed to see that if al-Ghazali had not existed it would
have been impossible for ibn Taymiyyah to engage the Greek philosophers and confront the
Muslim philosophers, for a great deal of what the Hanbalite knew of logic and effective
methodology was derived from the lesson taught and demonstrated by al-Ghazali. It was in
fact ibn Taymiyyah who lashed at logic, denounced definition, stifled syllogism, attacked
analogical reasoning, so that if we are looking for someone to blame for the degeneration of
Muslim thought and action although there are other causes for that then surely ibn
Taymiyyahs influence is a major cause of our present intellectual confusion. That is why the
inability to define; to identify and isolate problems; to provide for right solutions; the creation of
pseudo-problems; the reduction of problems to mere political, socio-economic and legal factors
become evident today. Ibn Taymiyyahs influence is also evident in the reduction of knowledge
and correct perception of Islm and the worldview projected by it to merely its ritual and legal
aspects. In this way the meaning of ibdah has become restricted because the fundamental
knowledge obligatory for all Muslims, that is the far ayn, has been reduced to its bare ritual
and legal essentials and made static in fixity at the level of immaturity. The intellectual and
cognitive aspects of the far ayn, that render right balance in ibdah which requires them in
order to reach full maturity, have been neglected. The restriction of the meaning of amal or
activity to its physical aspects follows and leads to the kind of activism that is productive of
social, political and legal unrest and narrow-mindedness. The modernists and their followers
must see that the activism urged in the activity of ibdah is not merely a physical one but also,
in addition to that, an intellectual one. The intellectual activism I mean is not of the modernist
kind, and is not to be confused with Iqbals notion of the search for rational foundations in
Islm. The need for a rational foundation in religion was made to be felt by intellectually
westernized modernists who unwittingly got themselves involved in the Western scholastic and
intellectual context of problems related to their religion. Religion according to us is not, on its
doctrinal side, merely a system of general truths as defined by Iqbal echoing Whitehead and
later adopted by Fazlur Rahman; a system of general truths whose specifics must not remain
unsettled. That was Whiteheads understanding of what religion is based solely on his
experience and reflection of his own religion. There is no reason why such a definition of
religion must be applied to Islm. Moreover, Islm does not need, on its doctrinal side, a
rational foundation because a rational foundation is already built into the very foundation of the
religion and the worldview it projects.
6. Then again, encouraged by charges of inconsistency and even contradictions in al-
Ghazali by ibn Rushd followed by ibn Taymiyyah, orientalist scholars and their modernist
disciples among whom was the late Fazlur Rahman have made al-Ghazali out to be some sort
of scholastic enigma. Their failure to assign to him a definite place in their minds have made
them brand him as a difficult and even deceptive thinker. Was he really a theologian
masquerading as a philosopher?, was he Asharite and yet a f at the same time? and so
they insisted on forcing their either/or attitude on one who defied such neat
compartmentalization. Yet their unfair charges of inconsistency and contradictions have never
been conclusively proven nor demonstrated to be true! Why should a man like al-Ghazali not
be philosopher, theologian, Asharite and f at the same time without being inconsistent or
being involved in contradictions? Indeed to Muslims generally al-Ghazali is the embodiment
of a synthesis of religion and philosophy, a synthesis whose great and beneficial value is
acknowledged by the various intellectual levels of the Community. But to those who preoccupy
themselves with philological exercises, textual criticisms, incessant research to determine
conceptual origins, they only speak to themselves among themselves in their academic circles,
and are oblivious or incapable of relating Ghazalis ideas to the solution of modern
problems. One is reminded of the story of the elephant and the four blind pundits. Since they
could not see with their eyes they had to grope with their hands to feel and describe to their
imagination the creature that stood before them. One stroked its leg and declared: This creature
is a pillar; No!, said another who grasped its twisting trunk: It is a big snake; the third
disagreed as he groped its broad back saying: It is a throne; You are all in error, the last one
contended feeling the huge ear: It is indeed a carpet!. Afterwards they each wrote learned
books disputing the other and affirming their own imaginary vision of the creature to be the true
one.

7. The problem of the corruption of knowledge has come about due to our own state of
confusion as well as influences coming from the philosophy, science, and ideology of modern
Western culture and civilization. Intellectual confusion emerged as a result of changes and
restriction in the meaning of key terms that project the worldview derived from Revelation. The
repercussions arising from this intellectual confusion manifest themselves in moral and cultural
dislocation, which is symptomatic of the degeneration of religious knowledge, faith, and
values. The changes and restriction in the meaning of such key terms occur due to the spread of
secularization as a philosophical programwhich holds sway over hearts and minds enmeshed in
the crisis of truth and the crisis of identity. These crises, in turn, have become actualized as a
result of a secularized system of education that causes deviations, if not severance, from
historical roots that have been firmly established by our wise and illustrious predecessors upon
foundations vitalized by religion. One must see that the kind of problem confronting us is of
such a profound nature as to embrace all the fundamental elements of our worldview that cannot
simply be resolved by groping in the labyrinths of legalism and struggling in the socio-political
arena of activism which throbs in the veins of Muslim modernism.

8. A most important and original idea of al-Ghazali that orientalist and Muslim scholars
have not given the attention it deserves, due to the fact that they have failed to discover it and to
realize its novelty and its great significance for our time, is the idea of how semantic change and
restriction in the Islamic key terms pertaining to knowledge in a science that is considered as
praiseworthy renders the science to become blameworthy; and this will ultimately bring about
confusion and corruption in knowledge. This is because the key terms in the basic vocabulary of
the Islamic language serve a conceptual network of interrelated fields of meaning which
ultimately project in the Muslim mind the worldview they are meant to describe. Al-Ghazali
pointed out in the I?y that even in his time key terms such as fiqh, ilm, taw?d, dhikr,
and ?ikmah have been tampered with by change and restriction in their original and authentic
meanings. Similarly in the Tahfut he demonstrated that the philosophers have changed the
original and authentic meaning of the important concepts conveyed by the terms fil and fil to
suit their own ideas which contradict the teachings of Islm with respect to the nature of God
and of creation. We see that if even a few of Islamic key terms were changed or restricted in
their meanings, or were made to convey meanings which are not authentic and authoritative by
which I mean whose intentions no longer reflect those correctly understood by the early Muslims
then this would inevitably create confusion and error in the minds of Muslims and disrupt
intellectual and spiritual unity among them. Moreover, it would render sciences once considered
praiseworthy to become blameworthy. Unity has two aspects: the outward, external unity
manifested in society as communal and national solidarity; and the inward, internal unity of ideas
and mind revealed in intellectual and spiritual coherence that encompasses realms beyond
communal and national boundaries. Understanding pertains to the second aspect, which is
fundamental to the realization of the first. The coherence of this second aspect depends upon the
soundness and integrity of concepts in language, the instrument of reason which influences its
users. If the soundness and integrity of concepts in language is confused, then this is due to a
confusion in worldview caused by the corruption of knowledge. I am not here suggesting
something that may be construed as not allowing language to develop, to unfold itself according
to its potential powers of tracing the rich tapestry of life as it unfolds, to evolve with ideas as
they evolve, to grasp reality-truth as it manifests itself in the fleeting passage of time. I am only
suggesting, deriving from the lesson al-Ghazali taught, that the basic vocabulary in the Islamic
language can only develop from its roots, and not severed from them, nor can they develop from
roots stunted in restriction. Secular and materialistic value systems have their initial locus in
minds, then they are translated into linguistic symbols, and afterwards become manifest in the
external world first in urban areas whence they spread like a raging contagion to the rural
masses. The problem related to language and semantic change is not simply a matter of
language as such, but a matter of worldview. Semantic confusion as a result of misapplication of
terms denoting key concepts in the Islamic basic vocabulary does adversely affect Muslim
perception of the worldview of Islm which is projected by both al-kitb wa al-?ikmah.

9. In the languages of Muslim peoples including Arabic, there is a basic vocabulary consisting
of key terms which govern the interpretation of the Islamic vision of reality and truth and which
project in the Muslim mind the worldview of Islm in correct perspective. Because the words
that comprise this basic vocabulary have their origins in the Qurn and in the Prophetic
Traditions, these words are naturally in Arabic and are deployed uniformly in all Muslim
languages reflecting the intellectual and spiritual unity of Muslims throughout the world. This
basic vocabulary is composed of key terms denoting important concepts related to one another
meaningfully and altogether determining the conceptual structure of reality and existence
projected by them in conformity with the Qurn. Language reflects ontology. Introducing key
concepts foreign to a language involves not merely the translating of words, but more profoundly
the translating of symbolic forms belonging to the super system of a foreign worldview not
compatible with the worldview projected by the language into which such concepts are
introduced. Those responsible for introducing them and advocating their currency are the
scholars, academics, journalists, critics, politicians and amateurs not firmly grounded upon
knowledge of the essentials of religion and its vision of reality and truth. One of the main causes
for the emergence of intellectual confusion and anarchy is the changes and restrictions which
they have effected in the meanings of key terms that project the worldview of Islm which is
derived from Revelation.

10. But the modernist thinkers and their immediate disciples and later followers which include
some traditionalists ignored authentic and authoritative usage of Quranic Arabic and violated its
etymological principles in order to introduce foreign meanings in the key terms involving
changes and restrictions which run counter to their original intentions and which displace their
purpose in the conceptual structure of the worldview of Islm. Respecting interpretation of the
Qurn, from which a new form of Arabic is derived, they have consistently advocated
hermeneutic methods whose character depended largely upon learned conjecture and subjective
speculation and the notion of historical relativism. They are unaware that Muslims are now
being confronted by the same challenges as in the past, albeit more intensive and of greater
magnitude, in having to grapple with foreign concepts and to find suitable words and terms to
denote them without violating the etymological and semantic structure of Arabic words and
terms and displacing their purpose in the Islamic conceptual system. In their haste to assimilate
foreign concepts without understanding that they serve a different perception of reality and of
truth, and unaware of their own perception of worldview, the modernist thinkers and intellectuals
have introduced into current Muslim thought and linguistic usage rampant confusion. Their
tampering of important terminologies belonging to the conceptual system which depicts the
worldview of Islm is made widespread by being disseminated in their translations and
interpretations of foreign terms and concepts in dictionaries of modern Arabic, in Arabic
dictionaries of the various sciences, in modernist writings in Arabic literature, in journals and the
writings of secular scholars and intellectuals and their traditionalist counterparts, and in the mass
media. The changes in meaning that result are caused by (i), restriction or reduction of the
original pattern of meaning and its scope in its various meaningful contexts; (ii), introduction of
new meaning that goes beyond what is demanded by etymology and contextual precision; (iii),
introduction of key concepts from another worldview not compatible with that of Islm by
means of arabization and dissemination in current usage; (iv), introduction of a new
interpretation of worldview that is influenced by modern scientific developments; and (v),
imitation by other Muslim languages of what is current in modernist Arabic usage and
thought. Their arabization and introduction of concepts peculiar to secularization as a
philosophical program into contemporary Muslim thought, such as development, change,
freedom, progress, and secularity itself and other concepts aligned to them, have
tremendously contributed to the confusion in the Muslim understanding of the meaning of
religion itself and of the fundamental elements that project its worldview such as the nature of
God, of Revelation, of Prophecy, of man and the psychology of the human soul, of knowledge
and cognition, of ethics and its goal, of purposeful conceptualization of the meaning of
education. Muslims must realize that our dialogue today is with the powerful forces of
secularization as a philosophical program whose underlying philosophy and ideology have
created a separation between truth and reality and between truth and values. It is only through
thorough knowledge of Islm and its worldview, coupled with the knowledge of Western
thought and civilization and the understanding of its evolutionary history of intellectual and
religious development, that we can engage ourselves in this profound dialogue with success, as
al-Ghazali, under similar circumstances and in his own milieu, had demonstrated.