In the previous article we had exposed one aspect of the modernistic school of thought that they have made the Western way of thinking and living a criterion of right and wrong. In this article we are making some further submissions about the way of thinking and the method of argumentation of the modernists which are of fundamental importance to the subject under discussion. We intend to point out the reasons why all the efforts of our modern researchers have led them to the path of distortion in the name of “research”.
Even a man with ordinary common sense knows that “Research” means “Search for Reality” and a researcher holds the position of a judge. It is his obligation that without forming any preconceived ideas and pre-drawn conclusions he should examine all the relevant matters thoroughly and impartially, consider all possible aspects of the problem with utmost honesty and add the weight of his judgment to the right side of the argument. On the contrary, if any one seeks and searches the arguments to support a preconceived idea or judgment he is certainly not the seeker of truth, nor do his efforts in this direction deserve to be called ‘research work’.
The duty of a research worker is not to collect arguments for a predetermined idea but to determine an idea in the light of arguments. He does not drag the arguments towards his judgment but the arguments drive him towards a judgment. But the process of working of our modernists is quite opposite. They believe that arguments are to serve a decision rather than the decision being dependent on arguments. This is what they think is the correct method of research and this what they teach as a methodology of research. They commonly make suggestions in their oral and written statements that:
“We want to interpret the Qur’an and the Sunnah in a manner that it conforms to the needs of our time”.
It is a clear admission to the fact that they want to bring the Qur’an and Sunnah to reconcile with their decisions and not make their decisions to correspond with the Qur’an and the Sunnah. That is they will first decide as to what are the needs of time and then to try and find these arguments they will make such interpretations of the Qur’anic verses and prophetic traditions as to conform to their predetermined needs of the Time. This is what is termed as the “distortion of meaning”. This way of argumentation can never be supported by any sensible person of the world. If the process of research is allowed to move in reverse direction then there will be no way left to protect the integrity of the truth. This is because in this way every illogical claim can be supported by argument. Nothing in the world would then be devoid of argument, and as they say: “Everything can be proved by everything”. Once it is decided that a certain thing is to be proved through the Qur’an and Sunnah, and for this purpose you have decided to give new interpretation to the Qur’an and Sunnah, it would obviously mean that anything found supporting this idea would be presented as an argument no matter how weak and baseless it be and even the strongest argument against it would be thrown away being incompatible with present day life.
You probably know that the Christian missionaries, while preaching their religion in the Muslim world, always prove their beliefs through the Qur’an and Traditions before common Muslims. For example, they say that the Qur’an has called Jesus, as “Kalimatullah” (The word of Allah) which implies that he was Allah’s attribute of “Kal’am” (Speech) and the Bible of John also says the same. Also, the Qur’an said that Jesus was “R’uhullah” (The spirit of God) which implies that his relation with God was the same as that of Soul with body, and the same is said by Paul. They further say that the Qur’an said: “We supported Jesus with the holy spirit” and the same has been mentioned in the Bible that the Holy Ghost was sent to Jesus in the form of a pigeon.
In this way they prove their concept of Trinity, and the tragedy is that they prove it through the Qur’an by virtue of its “new interpretation”. As for the verses of the Qur’an which explicitly condemn the concept of Trinity, their “new interpretation” is that these verses condemn Trinity in the literal and real sense of the word, and even the Christians accept that there is only one God, and these three are only the components of one and not separate gods. Also according to their “new Interpretation” of Qur’an and its proclamation “Those who say Jesus son of Mary is god are Kafirs (unbelievers)” in fact meant to contradict the sect of monophacy. Where Qur’an has warned the Christians against the torment of Hell their “new Interpretation” is that this does not refer to Catholics but is meant for monophasics. The Qur’an says that Jesus was not crucified. The “new Interpretation is that, Christians in general also believe that the third person of Trinity was not crucified and the Qur’an does not contradict the crucifixion of his body.”
It can be seen how the magic of “new Interpretation” proved all Christians’ beliefs to be in conformity with Islam. The question arises “What is the difference between your new Interpretation and that of the Christians?” If you have a right to make “new Interpretation” of the Quran and Sunnah in order to amend the established laws of Islam why the Christians should not have the same right? Under what rule or regulation can you reject the Christians’ “new Interpretation”?
One may argue that our comparison of “new Interpretation” of modernists with the “new Interpretation” of Christians is exaggerated, but that is not true. The readers may go through their articles on the subject and the truth of our statement will become quite apparent.