By Yusra Hulaimi
The people of the past have influenced and are still continuing to influence the present times substantially. In fact, the imprints that are left by them are much more felt than the stamps left by great men of our own times. These wise people of antiquity, in fact, are still being unprecedented by the people of the present times. One of the many reasons is that not many of today’s wise men can produce voluminous and encyclopaedic works as they did. What appear to us as rare and phenomenal, to the antiquities, were frequently occasional.
Take Aristotle, for example. He catalogued hundreds of species of animals with great details, an effort that would require a team of experts that would devout their whole life trying to emulate such a work. Not only that, he provided an enduring framework for the modern sciences that are closely related to his prototypic zoology that leads to countless later discoveries.
Now, take Avicenna as another representative of the other side of the globe. His works on medicine and surgery are still being used by the whole disciplinary body on modern medicine up until now. And how his surgical methods endure the changes of time – although the surgical instruments are now considerably different, the bases of the methods, however, are still thoroughly Avicenna.
Surprisingly, however, the geniuses mentioned are only some small parts of these men’s whole corpora. There are other works that they have done which are much more voluminous, elaborative, and outstanding. And the marks that they have left upon our world today are much more unimaginable. Aristotle’s Organon and Avicenna’s The Book of Healing are some of the examples.
The intellectual giants
And I do not need to mention other names such as Pythagoras, Archimedes, and other polymaths of that time. Nor do I need to elaborate on the geniuses of Algazel (al-Ghazzali), Averroes, al-Biruni, Ibn Haytham, and the intellectual giants that lived in their times. Such is also the case with Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and their counterparts. All civilisations have had their experience in producing their own intellectual giants.
These intellectual giants are generally known as The Universal Man. They are so named because their mastery encompasses almost every branch of knowledge available in their respective times. And they made unparalleled contributions in each of these branches of knowledge. How did such phenomena take place? How did the past produce such a vast number of polymaths? How did they nurture the making of The Universal Man? And why is it that we are incapable of emulating their excellence?
There are some common resemblances in great civilisations – their sciences, technologies, knowledge, discoveries and some other countless aspects need not be mentioned. One of which is philosophy as the mother of all knowledge and the bearer of all wisdoms. Mostly known civilisations such as the ancient Greeks, the ancient Egyptians, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Muslims, all of them have their own philosophies. And at the hearts of their philosophies are the indispensable tools that enable them to sail the oceans of knowledge and soar the skies of wisdoms.
The tools are the “liberal arts”. Indeed, the tools brought them much further. Not only it made them sailed and soared, it also enabled them to conquer. They tamed the seas. They conquered the skies. But most of all, they conquered and overpowered their own intellectual and spiritual weakness- that is, ignorance. The liberal arts is a set of skills that can equip a man to elevate his self. The set of skills is called as such because it liberates its masters. They are liberated from their own ignorance and eventually from their own bestial aspect.
Every civilisation and every culture have their own perspectives on the liberal arts. And it became the core of their educational systems. In Islamic culture, there was the concept of “Futuwwah” as their education. In Japan they have “Bushido”. In ancient Greek times, they developed an education system that was conceptualised as the “Paideia”. And in the medieval West, there was a similar system called “Chivalry”. All of these systems more or less emphasised on character perfection as their central interest. And they stressed on employing certain sets of values such as loyalty, benevolence, compassion, protecting the weak, self-control, and others.
Apart from extensive knowledge as a criterion, composing one’s self with these sets of values is also the hallmark of The Universal Man. And they all have their own technical terms to predicate this type of man. In Islam, we call them “Insan Kamil”. The Japanese call them “Samurai”, the noblest class there is in their society. In Greeks tradition, Aristotle called them “The Magnanimous Man”. Meanwhile, Plato respectfully held them in high position and made it a prerequisite for a king to become such a man. While the Europeans call them “knights” or “The Renaissance Man”.
Now, a relationship between character excellence and oceanic knowledge is far from a coincidence. Indeed, they have a much closer relationship than a mere correlation. Knowledge leaves positive marks on one’s soul and clarity for the mind. The more the knowledge, the more the positive marks imprinted on the soul and the clarity for the mind. And the signs of perfected knowledge and a well-moulded soul can be seen in the conducts. The Universal Man – a man of excellent behaviour – is, therefore, a man whose knowledge is very close to perfection. In other words, perfecting one’s knowledge will consequently polish one’s soul. And a well-polished soul will exhibit excellence in character.
Liberal arts is a set of tools
How do the arts play its role in this mechanism? As mentioned, the liberal arts is a set of tools. It is the ultimate tool of knowledge. Whoever masters the arts can master any form of articulated knowledge – be it written or uttered, because knowledge are articulated systematically, and these arts are the tools to uncover and understand the sophisticated systems. And as also mentioned above, the more the knowledge mastered by a person, the more perfected his soul and conduct. Hence, producing the Universal Man.
This is why in Islamic intellectual tradition, the liberal arts have been heavily emphasised of its centrality. An evidence can be seen in the tireless efforts orchestrated by the scholars – be it systematically collective or individually- in systemising, elaborating, commenting, correcting, and also making it as one of the prerequisites in Islamic education.
I think it is not necessary to discuss why producing The Universal Man is very important because its importance is very well known by everyone. We need this kind of man to improve the problematic condition in which we are living today. However, a relevant issue that should be of our concern is how we should place the education of liberal arts in today’s society.
In seeing today’s situation, it is arguably agreeable that we should return to religion as a primary source of guidance. However, we are also facing a problem within the religious community itself – more so with the religious authority. The religious communities are incompetent in positioning their respective religions as the vanguards in the encounter with the modern world. The source of this incompetency? Of course, stems from the incompetency of the religious authority or the scholars themselves. The main problem of these communities might be put simply as the ignorance against the secular knowledge as well as the dynamic aspects of the religious knowledge. Simply put, they lack the mastery in knowledge which are principal in nature and which governs the structure of all other knowledge.
Knowledge, in its structure as a whole, can be compared to a tree. A tree generally has three basic parts: the roots, the trunk, and the branches. The kind of nourishments obtained by the roots will shape the growth of the branches. If the nutrients do not suffice, the branches will develop slowly. But if the roots find optimum proportions of nutrients, the overall growth of the tree will be enhanced. However, if the supplies for the roots are toxic, then the tree will dramatically die.
Similarly, knowledge are of two kinds- one being the root for the other: the principal knowledge which comprise the roots of a tree, and derived knowledge which comprise the branches of a tree. Both secular and religious knowledge can be divided in this way. Most of the principal knowledge are highly sophisticated in nature. And this is more so the case with the religious knowledge. The logic, algorithms, methods, approaches, and foundations are all formulated in a complex and scientific manner. Whereas, in the case of religious knowledge, the formulation could be said as being much more philosophical.
Knower as guardian of the knowledge tree
Moreover, the knower is the guardian of the knowledge tree, the one who is responsible in managing its nutrient supply, the one who is responsible in preserving the foundations of knowledge while at the same time constructing it to be more refined and dynamic. While all the principal knowledge play the role as the foundations for all other derived knowledge, the guardians of these knowledge, however, are far from being constructive. In fact, they are the one who gradually weaken the foundations, thus consistently shifting the branches unnecessarily and irrelevantly.
The implications are devastating. One of which is gapping the bridge between secular and religious knowledge. This leaves the secular knowledge developing without religious foundations. They would be left to stand upon non-metaphysical conjectures which are continuously shifting its position. And they could gradually be seized from being cumulatively constructive and are susceptible to be subdued by moral relativism. Meanwhile, religious knowledge will be left isolated in the shadow of irrelevance. It would seize to play its role as the proper guidance morally and metaphysically.
All of these stemmed from the faults done by religious scholars. The faults are by being incompetent in mastering the religious knowledge so as to make them play their dynamic and principal roles. Mastering these knowledge requires one to be creative and critical in his thoughts and systematic and eloquent in his articulations. And this can only be equipped by mastering the liberal arts. Because liberal arts are to the mind as how sports are to the body. They perfect the intellectual faculty as how sports idealised the body.
Therefore, students of Islamic studies should actively equip themselves with liberal arts. Only then they can think properly and creatively. And only then can they find and actualise the dynamism of religious knowledge. Only then the religious knowledge can function as how they are initially intended by their systemiser as well as by God. Only then can the connective threads between the religious knowledge and the secular knowledge be found. And only then the secular knowledge can find its metaphysical foundations and hence harmonising the relationship between the religious knowledge and the secular knowledge. And only then the secular knowledge would find their proper functions in serving man’s ultimate purpose which is religious and metaphysical in nature. And only then the glories of the past can be again revived and relived.
And if one knows how to integrate secular knowledge with the religious knowledge, and consequently benefitting from the former to serve the purpose of the latter, then one has truly acquired al-Hikmah. And that is the greatest good that one can achieve in this world (Al-Baqarah: 269). This is, indeed, the most perfect level a human being can achieve and the most beneficial prospect a civilisation can produce. And this is, in fact, what have been done by our scholars in the past. ***