Method Suitable for Theological
Research

The topic under discussion is
understanding Islam and the world Muslims. But what I
wish to discuss first is what research methodology is
suitable for theological discussion; or, in other words
the approach is research in religious matters.

Discussion of any subject itself dictates when that
the method should be appropriate to that subject. For
example, today, when a researcher wishes to discuss and
carry out research of a particular disease, he selects a
particular methodology, makes a survey of the symptoms
and effects of the disease and its treatment, and
recommends that a number of patients suffering from that
particular disease should be placed under observation and
subjected to various clinical tests of their tissues,
blood, urine etc. and analysed to prepare a scientific
table in order to diagnose the peculiarities of that
disease and the manner of its treatment, and identify the
bacterial factors and establish the cause of infection.
Today if someone wishing to establish the symptomology of
the disease and arrive at a diagnosis, instead of
employing the necessary means such as well-equipped
laboratories and hospitals, statistical data, and
experiments on animals and human beings, declared that
for the diagnosis he has decided to proceed by conducting
a nightly study of the stars for forty nights past
midnight to discover the symptoms and cause of illness
and the procedure for treatment of that disease, he will
be made fun of in the scientific circles. He would be
told that in choosing this course, even if he went to a
well-equipped observatory to study the movement of the
stars, their form, and how they rise and set, such
activities and thoughts would not bear even the slightest
effect on the patient, or the cause of his disease, on an
its effects nor its treatment. Or if he were to declare
that for the purpose of studying this matter he had
decided to place an astrolabe in front of him and in
accordance with special signs and calculations provided
by the astrolabe and even computing by the art of
arithmetical numbers, he will discover the cause and
effects of that disease and its cure, again science would
laugh at him, and say to him: To identify a disease as
far as human intellect has been able to establish
requires that a study of the patients be made and
laboratory tests and experiments be conducted and their
results compared in order to diagnose that disease.

If someone declares in a session how nice it would be
to secure some information about the way the people lived
in Indonesia three thousand years ago, and if the
interest of those present in the session was aroused in
studying the precise details about the life and beliefs
of those people scientifically and thus undertake a
scientific project, naturally we would ask them about
their approach to this research. If they answer that they
have decided to confine a number of Indonesians in a
hospital and give them blood tests in order to analyse
these people's life three thousand. years ago, this, too,
would provoke laughter. For such proceedings as the blood
and tissue tests, no matter how useful those might be for
the diagnosis of a disease or its treatment, yet it would
not be of the slightest value for learning about the life
of Indonesians who lived three thousand years ago.

Let us take a step further. Among the various
political systems which is the best system for organising
and administering a society, the communist or socialist
or the capitalist one; which is more valuable and
beneficial from an economic point of view. Either
democratic or dictatorial forms among the existing
political systems are more suitable? How should a
researcher set about this task? Someone might suggest
that observation would be the best way to clarify this
problem. If we were to ask how could observation be
applied, they would answer by carrying out calculations
about the 'physics' of the society and see what form the
society and its organism should take. But the research
methodology used by an atomic scientist for atomic
research would hardly be practicable for a study of
various social systems, and its conclusions would be
irrelevant. Thus it is quite evident that the method
chosen for the study and research in any subject must be
appropriate for that subject.

A
Methodology for Research in

Theological
Topics

The foremost issue in our discussion is what method
without any prejudice, is suitable for gaining an
understanding of a religion? In my opinion the proper
method for an understanding of a religion is to get hold
of the original source material of that religion, and
work on it in the way of research in narratives and
traditions - neither experimental nor intellectual
approach - but rather as in the study of history which in
modern methodology is called 'Historical Research
Methodology'. Working on the reliable sources of that
faith we can gain an understanding of it whether we
believe in that religion or not.

Let us take the example of a religion which we do not
believe is. For instance, wish to study Buddhism and know
what Buddhism is. Neither intellectual, mathematical or
scientific discussions, nor physical or chemical
arguments would produce any result. Astrological or
celestial discussions would equally be of no value. The
correct way to understand Buddha's laws would be to refer
to reliable historical sources, and evaluate them from
the viewpoint of authenticity and validity, and then
compare them, and gather all that has been for and
against the Buddhist faith, and through a comparative
study draw scholarly conclusions about what Buddhism
really is, whether we believe in it or not. This is the
first consideration about understanding any religion.

Suppose we wish to know what Judaism is, and what is
the religion of the Jews. Here exist two aspects: either
the object is to know what the present day Jews believe
in and what are their actions and beliefs, or the purpose
may be to know what the original Jewish faith was at the
time of its appearance, and what had (Moses) Musa (a.s.)
delivered to the Israelites as a religion. There are two
different methods for these two aspects.

The research into the religion Moses brought for the
Israelites, has no relation with physics, chemistry,
mathematics, celestial aspects and the rest. Research in
this aspect requires close study of the Old Testament,
the interpretation of the Old Testament, and the books
written about this faith by the contemporary Greek and
Egyptian historians because unfortunately no other
sources are available. To proceed with our study we
collect these sources make a comparative study taking
into account all pros and cons about this faith to be
able to conclude, in a scholarly manner, what had Musa
(a.s.) really delivered.

But if the object were to understand the Jewish faith
in the contemporary world, we should send a number of
investigators to various parts of the world to see how
the Jews practise their religion in their every day
lives. We should study their publications in various
languages, interview their religious leaders, and collate
all the information gathered to reach conclusions about
the Jewish ideology and their practice in the present day
world.

Similarly with regards to Islam, if we wish to study
it, irrespective of being Muslims, there are two
approaches: firstly, when we wish to know what the
Muslims believe in and how they practise it, and,
secondly when our purpose is to study the Islamic faith,
namely the nature of Islam which was delivered by
Muhammad (a.s.) bin-Abdullah. If we wish to study the
Muslims of to-day, or those of one, two or five centuries
ago the approach is the same. To study their state
to-day, we should travel to various countries. In this
respect the Europeans adopt the proper method, and thus
most of their writings are accurate, since they travel to
various places, and observe things closely, make personal
contact, ask questions, take pictures and make films, and
so they declare that the Muslims of certain regions live
in such and such a manner. Of course sometimes they make
hasty judgment after visiting only a few towns and
villages and announce their views, whereas such a
conclusion does not conform to a scientific methodology.
what they can conclude after such insufficient visits and
observation is that in such and such villages and towns
Muslims live in such a manner and not generalise it to
include the entire Muslim population of the world, since
such a generalisation would be incorrect and contrary to
the scientific method.

If we wish to say what kind of Islam was brought by
Muhammad (a.s.) for mankind from Allah, we should first
gather all the reliable sources including the Qur'an,
traditions, contemporary history and writings of the
Prophet's time, even those opposed to the Prophet, and
after a thorough study, comparative research and
evaluation conclude that this is what Muhammad (a.s.)
introduced as Islam. There is no other way, since none of
the other scientific or investigative research methods
bear any relation this topic which deals with the
original form of a religion and its present day practice.

How to Come to Believe in
Religion?

The next issue is related to one's desire to accept a
religion, or when someone sincerely wishes to follow a
certain religion and be convinced of his choice. How
should one proceed in such a case? In my opinion, in this
case there is but one way and that is that once one out
of conviction declares, "I believe firmly that so
and so is a Prophet of God and what he proclaims is based
on divine revelation, and he quotes the words of God. I
believe in the sayings and teachings of this Prophet, I
affirm that all these are true."

The point that merits attention is that when a person
accepts a religion, the basis of his conviction in that
he regards the Prophet to be a true Prophet and that his
source is incontrovertible and certain. He knows that the
Prophet speaks the truth. No scientific reason is needed
to substantiate the Prophet's proclamation since the fact
of his being a prophet is in itself sufficient reason.
The Prophet's being righteous or that someone believes in
him may not be scientific reasons but support his being a
prophet. If one should accept the words of a prophet on
the basis of sufficient scientific reasoning, it is fine
and there is no harm in it, but this is not faith and we
cannot call it religious conviction. Religious conviction
means accepting the words of the prophet because he is a
prophet. If I declare that Islam is a true religion and
base this assertion on certain wise and ingenuous laws of
Islam, it is fine there being no harm in it, indeed it is
highly desirable, but yet it cannot be termed religious
conviction. If, for example, on the basis of this Islamic
law that ablution and taking a bath is necessary after
sexual intercourse, I should enumerate a number of
advantages and benefits for this bathing from the
hygienic, medical and spiritual points of view, it would
be fine and there is no harm in it. But should a polluted
person resort to bathing because of those benefits, his
action would not be approved as a religious obligation,
since his washing would resemble washing the hand when it
is dirty. Bath after a sexual intercourse is obligatory
for every Muslim because Prophet Muhammad (a.s.) ordered
it and all Muslims follow it because Muhammad (a.s.) is
the Prophet.

Principally this is the proper religious attitude and
belief; nothing else would be called a religious attitude
whether a religion is true or not, and whether Islam be a
true faith or otherwise. Therefore a religious attitude
with regard to this matter for a Muslim is that wherever
he performs a sexual intercourse, he is obliged to take a
bath and he does so because the Prophet said so. But if
he resorted to reasoning, saying that pollution held many
disadvantages on account of exudations from the root of
every single hair and hence bathing was a wise and
advisable thing to do and then added a number of other
benefits for his action, no harm is done but then what is
the real motive behind cleansing the body for a Muslim?
Is it on account of these benefits and qualities, or
because the prophet said so? What motivates a Jew to stop
work on Saturdays? If you ask him why he doesn't work on
Saturdays, he answers that Moses (a.s.) has said so. It
would not be right to call the Jew ignorant or stupid
from a scientific viewpoint. Or should we then expect him
to ponder philosophically about this matter in search of
an answer.

With regard to the second point which is related to
the belief in religion, the proper course is that as the
first step using deep reflection and reasoning one should
discover convincing reasons as to the existence of a God
and then believe that Abraham (a.s.) or Moses (a.s.), or
Jesus (a.s.) or Muhammad (a.s.) is the Prophet of God.
These two steps should be taken with the aid of
intelligence and reflection. It is these two stages which
warrant the application of our intelligence. If a
person's reflection, intelligence, wisdom and knowledge
fail him in securing a belief in God and in a prophet of
God such as Moses (a.s.) or Jesus (a.s.) or Muhammad
(a.s.) or Abraham (a.s.) or Noah (a.s.) or in Buddha as a
prophet, or in Zoroaster as a prophet, it would mean
failure in his first step. But if after reflection,
reasoning and applying his intelligence he developed a
belief in one God and in a prophet of God, then the steps
that follow would require no intellectual, or scientific
reasoning, since thenceforth every word of the prophet
would have validity for him and he would act accordingly.
On the other hand whosoever, inspite of convincing
reasons, fails to comprehend that these are indeed the
Prophet of God has lost in the first step.

Thus the proper methodology suited to theological
discussion is that while discussing belief in God, in a
prophet and prophethood, we can apply intellectual and
the so-called scientific reasoning.[1] But as we descend
from the level of God and prophet, and come to discuss
such problems as the reason why pork was forbidden, our
answer is: Because it is forbidden in accordance with
such and such a verse of the Qur'an. This is sufficient
reason and nothing more remains to be said. When they ask
what is the reason for such and such a form of government
in Islam, we answer: Because such and such a tradition,
or such a historical record or such a verse of the holy
Qur'an say so. Or we may say that according to such and
such a verse of the Qur'an, such form of Government is
wrong in Islam.

There is no room for such discussions as are normal
for social issues. Of course it would be valid to say
that we ought to understand each of these injunctions of
Islam, since many of them have been misunderstood, or
wrongly interpreted or not understood at all. This would
be another approach. For instance, all of us accept the
question of slaughter (of animals to food), but it is
another matter to ask about its underlying philosophy and
what has Islam ordained about it.

Let us choose a better example to make the subject
clearer, namely the question of pronouncing the marriage
vows or the marriage rites. Why is it that the marriage
vows make a man and a woman lawful for each other? The
answer is: Because this verse and that tradition say so.
This is an sufficient reason. But then: What are the
marriage vows? To comprehend this matter fully, it needs
to be explained. In Hamburg a man and woman came to be
married, both of them were Iranian Muslims. When I spoke
to them about the matrimonial vows and explained the term
and recited it to make their marriage legal. When the
rites were over, they said: "we wish someone had
explained these things to us in Iran". I asked how
was that? They said, "what we have seen in Iran is
that a number of men and women get together and a priest
comes along and recites a number of Arabic phrases which
no one understands, and then they declare that the
concerned pair had become lawful to each other. This we
do not understand".

Naturally it is necessary to understand the meaning of
the marriage vows, apart from the reason for it. Whenever
the subject of marriage comes under discussion, does it
mean merely the recitation of a number of Arabic phrases
for half an hour or does it imply something different, if
so what is it? For a proper comprehension of these
matters the field for free discussion is wide open to
attempt to understand what Islam had said on the basis of
the divine Book, traditions and history.

The third question is related to our desire to
understand the benefits; virtues and or occasionally even
disadvantages in Islamic injunctions. Should someone say
that Islam has created a problem in forbidding the use of
alcoholic beverages, here too, the matter is open to
debate. Even if we were to make up a thousand and one
advantages for the ban on alcohol, those still would not
constitute a reason for the ban on alcohol in Islam,
since the only real reason for it is the verse of the
holy Qur'an or a tradition.

Let us recapitulate the main points of the discussion
thus far:

For a proper understanding of a religion, the
basis is its original sources which should be
studied in the manner of historical research and
not experimental investigation nor philosophical
inquiry.

To believe in a religion one should first acquire
a belief in God and prophet through sufficient
intellectual reasoning. Then in the next stage,
whatever the prophet has said becomes religion
for the believer; no other approach is of any
consequence.

For a proper understanding of Islam and the
spirit of its teachings or any other religion it
is necessary to verify those subjects with one's
personal and social life and then evaluate them
in close interrelation. This is another field
open for discussion for understanding the
commandments of Islam or of any other religion.

One can freely discuss all the good or bad points
of any precept of Islam or any religion which
come to the mind. One is free to examine them.
Should one count thousand and one defects, it
still would not constitute a reason for its
invalidity, nor would a thousand and one virtues
be a reason for its validity. In this manner, I
believe we could proceed to discuss. Any other
approach to evaluate Islam, Judaism or
Zoroastrianism would mean a deviation from the
right path. For instance if we begin to discuss
the importance of fire from a physical and
practical viewpoint or problems of life and such
matters and thereby conclude that Zoroastianism
is a true faith, or vice versa, prove it to be a
false religion, either approach would be a
deviation from the right course.

A Supplementary to the
Method

The question that arises here is, if a person in his
choice of a religion wishes to know whether Islam was
better or Christianity or Judaism and has not yet reached
a decision, what should he do? As a supplementary to
complete the method, we can add that at this stage all
blasphemy is permissible and nothing is forbidden. Now if
a total nonbeliever says that he has no faith, what
should he do in his choice of a faith, should we tell him
to go and make a survey of all the religions, and compare
them and then decide which one is better and then make
his choice? And if this procedure were necessary, would a
person's lifetime and his capabilities suffice?

In this regard my answer concerning the choice of a
religion is that this approach is not feasible What he
should do is to follow the phased method which I have
indicated earlier.

First step: Is the person who is to be accepted as a
prophet by the seeker as truly a prophet and a prophet of
God, and is there really a God who has this man as his
prophet? This is common to all religions, namely those
which profess belief in one God. Here the word religion
is used in a general sense to include those faiths which
profess a belief in God and a prophet. If this seeker
found adequate evidence that God exists then a comparison
and survey of various religions would be to no avail or
not of much use at the least not essential. What is
important is the conviction that God exists and He has a
prophet and it is essential that the teachings of that
prophet be strictly followed. And should that prophet be
followed by another prophet who I may believe has been
sent by God, then it would be necessary to study this new
faith and if it proved to be true then the new prophet
takes precedence.

As for those whose prophet was the last prophet, no
verification about subsequent claimants to prophethood is
required. If sufficient evidence was provided by the
acknowledged Prophet that he would have no successor,
further verification is not necessary since our belief in
him and in his declaration that he would not be succeeded
by another prophet would be sufficient reason to believe
in him. But had he predicted a successor to himself, the
task before his followers would be easier and shorter.
Therefore a study and comparison of all religions is
neither necessary, nor practicable and nor is it likely
to produce any effect.

In Answer to Another
Question

Question:

For a proper recognition of a
religious school, as you said, faith in God is a simpler
method, but each divine religion explains God in its own
peculiar way. So in order to identify which one is the
true God, we must have recourse to the original prophet.
In the present age it is no easy task to gain access to
that prophet and verify his actual sayings.

Answer:

Every person who wishes to acquire
belief in a faith, must follow this process, whether it
is a simple task or a hard one. Each person must study
and confirm that a prophet called Jesus did actually
exist or not and whether he was a prophet or not. If it
was confirmed that Jesus (a.s.) was a prophet, it would
be enough, since you would be a reliable source. Having
recognised that Jesus (a.s.), Moses (a.s.), or Muhammad
(a.s.) is a prophet, you must acknowledge his teachings
and act upon them. Of course which of his sayings we
should act upon is the next stage, not our primary
objective. However, what proof is there that Muhammad was
a prophet? Our investigations in this case should proceed
as for historical research with an extensive study of
historical sources in order to acknowledge the fact that
fourteen centuries ago, one Muhammad, had indeed existed
who was a prophet of God. Other than this there is no
way.

Where to We Begin?

Concerning the fundamentals of religion, one can
commence at two starting points: one of them is God, and
the other the Prophet. Most people begin with the
Prophet. In the case of Islam they begin with Muhammad
(a.s.) as a man endowed with extraordinary powers and is
in communication with a supernatural being. Thus they
come to believe in him. From here they deduce that the
force that Muhammad (a.s.) represents is God, and thus
most of them acquire faith. In the times of the Prophet
himself a number of persons were seized with a belief
about God Salman (Farsi) was one of those who reflected
about God, and then followed up this research. They
realised that the teachings about God that prevailed
around them were nothing but a set of illusions and
superstitions When such individuals heard that a prophet
had risen in Mecca who talked about God, they went there
and saw that indeed he possessed both the merit to be
God's representative as judged by his words, and also
manifested the signs which proved that he was truly the
Prophet of God. In this case their faith in God existed
prior to their faith in His prophet, and even prior to
their contact with the Prophet.

Then there were others who had no faith in God. They
were materialists or naturalists, and did not believe in
the existence of God at all. However their contact with
the Prophet altogether transformed them, and through the
Prophet they acquired faith in God Of course, later they
turned directly to God, but the foundation of their faith
was initially laid by the Prophet. Thus the principle of
faith in God as well as disbelief in Him both co-exist
among the Prophet's contemporaries. Through a comparative
study of recognition of God as it appears in various
religions we can conclude that a certain religion
conforms more appropriately with our intellect and
reasoning yet it is not proof enough for believing such
and such a person is a prophet. Likewise the prophethood
of a prophet cannot be proved only through his sublime
teachings pertaining to recognition of God. Let us
suppose that a priest comes along and through theological
discourse delivers excellent instruction about God, would
he then be a prophet, and would his teachings be adopted
as the way of faith? Certain great philosophers who had
no belief in religion, made noteworthy statements about
God. Would you then regard them to be prophets? Although
they did not claim to be prophets, but what if they did?
Therefore this is no ground. To acknowledge someone as a
prophet, we should study his life, his antecedents and
his education, and when we observe that his mental, and
spiritual personality is not an acquired one, only then
we conclude that he has gained that exalted personality
from an extraordinary source, and that proves him to be a
prophet.

That is why the Qur'an reiterates the fact that the
prophet was unlettered. Therefore, we acknowledge our
faith in God and the Prophet simultaneously without
placing one before the other and declare one faith in God
and the prophet at the same time. Then the words of that
Prophet would have validity for us, and to reach this
conclusion a prior study of comparative religions was
never needed.

With this brief introduction, we can proceed to the
main topic of discussion which is recognizing Islam and
Muslims of the world under the title of "Islam and
world Muslims".