Theory of Knowledge: Disagreements
Disagreements in the Theory of Knowledge
Even with everyday matters, it can be difficult for people to achieve an agreement, but when it comes to global issues, it appears that reaching a consensus will be nearly impossible. A group of specialists in a particular discipline may come to different conclusions while having access to the same information. The interpretation of religious systems and the study of ethics are two fields of knowledge that frequently reveal disparities in the views and ideas held by people from one another. The appearance of controversy occurs when the facts alone are not sufficient for the production of knowledge.
The personal experience of the individual or the traditional approach are used as a foundation in such situations. The interpretation of the Qur’an is frequently used to provide solutions to many difficulties in Muslim society. As a result, the vast majority of contemporary issues are not explicitly addressed in this religious literature, resulting in frequent differences among specialists in the subject, both on the theological and ethical levels.
Because the Qur’an is considered by all Islamic scholars to be the most important fact in the world, it is necessary to make a number of additional observations concerning its nature. Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the direct word of God, which was revealed to the Prophet Mohammed somewhere about the 7th century of the Common Era. Compared to ancient society, the contemporary social demands of the Muslim community are quite different. Because of this, it is recommended that the sacred text of the Qur’an be read in a different way. This is the issue that displays both religious and ethical debates in the process of interpretation. According to Vishal Arora, author of the 2012 article “The Qur’an in the Modern World,” Professor Abdullah Saeed’s theory that 21st-century Muslim scholars must consider the historical context when dealing with issues such as general human rights, citizenship, and gender equality in relation to the text of the Qur’an is supported by Professor Abdullah Saeed.
It is impossible to determine what the mainstream opinion on a particular interpretation of the text is, according to the scholar, because there are several schools of thought in Islam, as well as endless arguments on many matters (Arora, 2012). They employ additional knowledge to defend their point of view on matters such as religious system knowledge or ethical principles as long as the key fact for the Islamic experts is open to interpretation.
Considering the issue of women’s rights in Muslim society is a good illustration of how specialists might come to different conclusions when discussing a complex subject like religious systems. According to Jon Greenberg (2014), Saudi Arabia is the only Muslim country in the world that does not permit its female citizens to drive. Obviously, when Muslim scholars dispute about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia, they justify their stances by interpreting religious knowledge in their own fields of expertise. Some experts believe that the idea of women driving is wicked since the women would be exposed and would be living in a mixed society with males if this were to happen, according to them. They think that the Qur’an provides sufficient rationale for the prohibition since driving “leads to ill outcomes” (Greenberg, 2014), which are clearly detailed in the text. Others, on the other hand, claim that there is no direct evidence in the Qur’an that women are not permitted to drive.
Based on the fact that there is no instruction expressed in Islamic Law that bans a woman from driving, and that such a prohibition cannot be construed as a part of an Islamic teaching, such a conclusion can be reached (Greenberg, 2014). The topic of religious knowledge systems is discussed in this article. This is a highly specific example, yet it points to the larger issue of the Qur’an’s current interpretation as a whole. Those who advocate for restricting women’s capacity to operate a motor vehicle adhere to a traditional approach to the interpretation of the scriptures. Those who believe that women’s capacity to drive is a viable choice, on the other hand, adapt the old text to meet the needs of modern society.
When examining the reasons why a particular expert selects one way over another in terms of interpretation, it is vital to take into account the issue of personal knowledge, which can be based on memories, reasoning, or emotions. These different modes of knowing are responsible for the significant differences in the understanding of facts. Based on the author’s book The Qur’an: Modern Muslim Interpretations (2010), Massimo Campanini asserts that there is a tendency in Islam to prioritize aspects such as personal and economic achievement while also reflecting on contemporary values. Contemporary generations of Muslim society are influenced by global mass media, which means that their outlook may differ from that of their forefathers, and their intellectual and behavioral strategies may shift, resulting in “the authority of the Qur’an being undermined,” as stated by the Islamic State (Campanini, 2010, p.3).
Furthermore, the life story of each individual has a significant impact on his or her current position. Consider the relationship between Islam and science, which, while involving the scientific interpretation of scripture, is nevertheless reliant on the personal experiences of those who are experts in the field. People who have grown up in liberal homes will find it simpler to accept the notion that not all biological and physical notions are described in the Bible, or in the Bible and science, respectively. Those who have been raised in devout Muslim families, on the other hand, believe that science is just evidence for the divine origin of the Qur’an and that it has no place in their lives. In the end, the ideas of Islamic specialists concerning specific issues are influenced by their social backgrounds, since Muslims who reside in non-Islamic countries are typically influenced by the common beliefs of European or American society.
It is important to note that the characteristics listed above are relevant not only for debates about religious systems, but also for other areas of knowledge such as ethics. A moral prohibition against killing someone unjustly is contained in Surah 17 of the Qur’an, which translates as “do not take someone’s life without a legitimate cause” (The Holy Qur’an 17:33). This commandment, without a doubt, raises a fundamental ethical quandary. An observation exists that, without a doubt, generates controversy among professionals. Every specific accident of this nature can be broken down into two categories: emotional and rational. Each and every expert has his or her own point of view on this ethical quandary as long as there is no clear understanding of what constitutes a “just reason” in the first place. Aspects of the case that must be considered include religious beliefs based on an interpretation of the Qur’an, as well as personal reasons of each expert based on emotions, reasoning ability, and previous experience Furthermore, persons who lack prior experience in dealing with ethical dilemmas of this nature can rely on the firsthand knowledge of those who are regarded as authorities in the field. As a result, even personal knowledge can be shared with a large number of people.
It is vital to underline at the conclusion that the primary reason for conflicts among specialists is because there are concrete facts which are yet subject to interpretation. Following are some case studies drawn from Muslim society and culture which demonstrate that, despite being the supreme law for all people, the Qur’an may disclose disputes during the process of interpretation. In general, the modes of knowing that are employed in the interpretation of fields of knowledge such as religious systems and ethics are insufficient. Personal experience or faith in a traditional approach are examples of tools that are completely individual and have no justification to be recognized as the only valid way of thinking. As a result of having access to the same information, experts in a particular area may come to differ on certain issues.
