POLITIK ISLAM:ANTARA DEMOKRASI DAN TEOKRASI

• Masyarakat dunia hari ini dihadapkan dengan dua pilihan: sistem demokrasi atau sistem teokrasi, yang pertama produk sekular dan yang kedua produk 'agama'. Karena pilihan ini diberikan oleh kuasa dunia yang memimpin dunia, pilihan ini menjadi polemik di kalangan cendekiawan Muslim. Tamadun Barat yang telah maju, setelah berusaha membebaskan diri dari cengkraman 'agama' (gereja), tentunya akan bangga dengan kejayaannya sekarang dan melihat penyebab kemajuannya adalah berkat keberhasilan sekularisasi di dunia Barat. Pada Hari ini, dalam dunia yang serba serbinya diwarnai dengan materialisme dan dualisme, pilihan ini diberikan atas nama kemajuan dan pembangunan, pihak kedua hanya bisa menerima atau menolak tentunya dengan konsekwensi; menyokong sebagai kawan atau menentang sebagai lawan "you are either with us or you are against us" demikianlah seperti telah diungkapkan oleh George W. Bush ketika melancarkan perang terhadap terorisme.
  
  
• Pemikiran Barat telah lama dikongkong oleh cara berfikir dikotomis; agama atau sekular, dunia atau akhirat, manusia atau Tuhan. Cara berfikir dikotomis ini lahir akibat daripada dualisme yang merupakan elemen penting dalam sekularisme. Dengan metodologi seperti ini juga Abu Zayd memberi dua alternative kepada umat Islam: al-khit}a>b al-di>ni> (diskursus agama) atau al-khit}a>b al-‘ilma>ni>(diskursus sekular). Dengan segala keburukan yang ada pada diskursus agama (demikianlah digambarkannya) maka bagi beliau pilihan satu-satunya adalah diskursus sekular.[1] Dalam framework berfikir Barat seperti ini tidak mungkin ada jalan keluar daripada dualisme; tidak ada third alternative; tidak ada sistem yang dapat menggabungkan dunia dengan akhirat, agama dengan keduniaan, produk manusia dengan produk Tuhan.
  
  
  
• Akibat putus asa dengan pendekatan modernisme yang monolitik ini lahirlah pemikiran postmodernism (pascamodenisme) yang mengkritisi hebat modernisme tetapi meneruskan tradisi sekularisme dan anti-agamanya. Dalam kebuntuan dan kerancuan pemikiran Barat ini, Islam sebenarnya telah lama memberikan penyelesaian atau solusi bagi segala persoalan manusia, tapi sayangnya manusia terlalu angkuh dan lupa diri. Sebenarnya manusia tidak hanya mempunyai dua pilihan; ada banyak pilihan lain yang terbuka untuk dinilai dengan akal yang sehat. Al-Qur’an mendorong manusia berfikir secara lateral dan konstruktif bukan reaktif dan hanya mencari kesalahan ide-ide lain.
  
  
• Problematika Demokrasi.
  
  
• Demokrasi mempunyai dua wajah yang berbeda; wajah ideal-ideologis dan wajah real-pragmatis. Sebagai produk sekularisme, demokrasi lahir hasil pergelutan di antara rasionalitas dan kuasa gereja. Akibat pergelutan yang dahsyat dan panjang ini minda bawah sedar masyarakat Barat telah terpatri dengan kesimpulan bahawa pemerintahan agama hanya akan berdampak kemunduran. Bentuk pemerintahan sekular, liberal dan pluralis adalah satu-satunya solusi agar tidak berlaku lagi pemerintahan despotik dan autoritarian. Dan pada kenyataannya sistem politik ini yang telah dibangun oleh pemikir-pemikir politik Barat telah berhasil membangun ekonomi dan sosio-politik masyarakat Barat.
  
  
  
• Wajah manis demokrasi terlihat ketika menyuarakan "government of the people, by the people, for the people". Demokrasi yang memperjuangkan hak-hak asasi manusia. Terjaminnya kebebasan, persamaan dan keadilan bagi seluruh masyarakat. Dan yang paling penting sekali wujudnya pemimpin yang dipilih oleh rakyat dan bertanggung-jawab kepada rakyat. Demokrasi menjadi semakin penting dan relevan untuk menghindari pemerintahan despotik, kuku besi, dan otoritarian. Wajah manis inilah yang berhasil menarik minat sebahagian intelektual Muslim untuk mengadopsi sepenuhnya demokrasi Barat.
  
  
  
• Akan tetapi tidak sedikit para intelektual yang menyedari bahwa demokrasi sebenar hanya tinggal slogan dan retorika. Terlalu ramai yang tidak menyedari wajah hodoh demokrasi 'the ugly face of democracy'. Ini karena keburukan demokrasi akan hanya terlihat dengan minda yang bersih dari sekularisasi. Kritik pedas terhadap demokrasi ini banyak juga dilaungkan oleh cendikiawan Barat sendiri. Dalam bukunya Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy, Walter William seorang professor emeritus dari Universiti Washington, mengatakan bahwa pemerintahan Amerika semenjak zaman Reagan hingga saat ini adalah "Government of the Wealthy, for the wealthy"[2](pemerintahan si kaya untuk kepentingan si kaya) Perubahan nilai dalam demokrasi ini disebabkan adanya sistem lobbi yang memberi peluang bagi kapitalis-kapitalis, yang mayoritasnya Yahudi, untuk menentukan segala kebijaksanaan pemerintah.
  
  
  
• Kritikan lebih pedas lagi diutarakan oleh Chomsky, beliau mengatakan bahwa Amerika tidak kurang terorisnya berbanding mana-mana negara yang diklaim sebagai teroris. Karena Amerika berambisi untuk mewujudkan empayar dunia dan semua konspirasi dilakukan untuk merealisasikan "imperial grand strategy"(strategi penjajahan yang besar).[3] Antara konspirasi yang sudah tidak asing lagi adalah konspirasi 11 september yang menjadi lesen perang terhadap keganasan umat Islam. Demikian dijelaskan oleh Mathias Brockers, penulis Jerman yang berhasil mendedahkan konspirasi Amerika agar dunia percaya ia dilakukan oleh teroris.[4]
  
  
  
• Demokrasi mempunyai banyak kelemahan. Sesiapapun yang mengkaji demokrasi secara substantif dan kritis akan dapat melihat kelemahan dan kerancuan dalam sistem ini. Dalam sistem liberal demokrasi, berbanding dengan sistem Islam, terdapat kekaburan otoritas, pada teorinya rakyat berdaulat kedaulatan rakyat. Namun rakyat hanya berdaulat beberapa tahun sekali. Dan yang tidak kalah pentingnya dalam system demokrasi terlalu banyak slogan yang jauh dari kenyataan, pada kenyataannya kepentingan golongan elit lebih diutamakan berbanding kepentingan rakyat. Wakil rakyat tidak mewakili rakyat tetapi mewakili diri sendiri dan golongan tertentu (pendanan partai). Politik uang dan penipuan (immoralitas) diterima sebagai sebagian dari sistem politik yang sekular.
  
  
• Terdapat kecendrungan sebagian cendekiawan muslim untuk menerima bahkan mengagungkan dan mensakralkan demokrasi walhal tiada produk manusia yang sempurna bisa ditengarai sebagai kesan inferiority complex. Sebagian yang lain setelah menolak eksistensi politik Islam terpaksa menyerah sepenuhnya kepada produk Barat yang sekular. sebagian intellektual muslim yang mengusulkan garis persamaan antara Islam dengan demokrasi sebenarnya tanpa disadari telah mengambil jalan pintas dan tidak ingin pusing membangun sistem politik Islam. Di indonesia mayoritas intelektual menerima sistem demokrasi liberal tanpa syarat dan kritikan. Nurcholish Madjid, Amin Rais, Syafi‘i Ma’arif, Munawir Syadzali dan Abdurrahman Wahid di antara yang menyuarakan ide demokratisasi Indonesia sepenuhnya mengikuti pemikiran politik sekuler.[5] Bagi Nurcholish, demokrasi Barat ini sama sekali tidak bertentangan dengan ajaran Islam. [6]
  
  
• Memang demokrasi mempunyai idealisme-idealisme yang sangat baik walaupun tidak sempurna. Akan tetapi pada realitinya demokrasi biasa digunakan untuk mengaburi mata rakyat agar percaya pada pemerintah. Teori yang baik akan tinggal slogan dan retorika kalau orang yang terlibat tidak jujur dan amanah. Perkara yang sama juga bias berlaku pada politik Islam, Islam memiliki dasar-dasar politik yang sangat baik walaupun masih banyak yang perlu dilakukan untuk meningkatkannya. Teori politik Islam akan kekal menjadi teori dan retorika seandainya keilmuan dan kesadaran umat Islam masih rendah.
  
  
• Setelah segala apa yang dilakukan oleh negara demokrasi (Amerika) contoh terhadap setiap negara dan masyarakat yang tidak sehaluan dengannya maka apa masih boleh dikatakan negara demokrasi menjamin keadilan dan hak-hak asasi manusia? Rakyat sudah tidak lagi menjadi penentu dan pemimpin bukan lagi mewakili rakyat. Pemerintah yang menggunakan demokrasi sebagai alat untuk berkuasa hanya mewakili dan mendengar dari satu golongan saja, yaitu para kapitalis dan orang-orang yang berkepentingan dari dalam maupun luar negeri.
  
  
  
• Tipologi ‘Islam Politik’
  
  
• Sejak awal lapan puluhan, timbul istilah 'Islam politik', sebagai satu versi Islam yang dicipta oleh golongan ‘fundamentalis’. Muhammad Said al-Ashmawi di antara orang yang mempopulerkan terma ini. Dalam bukunya yang sangat controversial tetapi sebenarnya hanya menyambung ide Ali Abd al-Raziq, beliau menggunakan istilah al-Islam al-Siyasi sebagai Islam bentuk baru yang diada-adakan oleh kaum fundamentalis.[7] Oleh kaum liberal, mengikuti para Orientalis, digambarkan seolah-olah ada banyak versi Islam, karena masing-masing tidak boleh mengklaim Islamnya yang paling betul, maka dikatakan semuanya valid. Ada Islam ritual, Islam sufi, Islam literal, Islam progressif dsb. Islam menjadi subjek yang relatif dan terbuka kepada penafsiran manusia. Tipologi dan kategorisasi seperti ini tidak seharusnya diterima oleh umat Islam.
  
  
  
• Namun sayangnya, tipologi seperti ini sudah menular dan mengakar dalam diri intelektual Muslim. Sehingga ia menjadi lumrah dalam diskursus pemikiran Islam kontemporari. Bagi Azyumardi Azra misalnya, beliau punya alasan yang kuat untuk mengkategorikan Islam ritual, Islam kultural, dan Islam politik karena beliau melihat dari sudut sosiologi dan antropologi.[8] Walaubagaimanapun, ini tidak sama sekali menjustifikasikan pelabelan tersebut memandangkan hal ini berkaitan dengan prinsip no-versions dan anti-dikotomi dalam Islam.
  
  
  
• Disamping karena hasil olahan Barat, kategorisasi seperti ini tidak relevan langsung dengan umat Islam. Ini karena berbeda dengan agama lain, Islam bukan produk manusia. Dengan pemahaman Islam yang mendalam akan tanpak dengan jelas bahawa Islam tidak memerlukan inovasi untuk memperbaiki dan meningkatkan agama sendiri. Islam yang asli daripada Allah telah sempurna dan sesuai sepanjang zaman. Tinggal lagi persoalannya adalah sejauhmana kita memahami Islam, bukan apa bentuk Islam yang kita inginkan? Kekeliruan ini timbul akibat krisis otoritas. Umat pada umumnya tidak lagi dapat membedakan yang mana rujukan yang sah dan mana rujukan yang perlu ditolak. Ini karena ramai yang berbicara tentang Islam tidak lagi bersandarkan kepada otoritas. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, yang dianggap moderat oleh masyarakat dunia, mengkritik habis-habisan pelabelan Islam politik kepada golongan Islamis. Bagi beliau terma itu dibuat untuk memojokkan umat Islam dan mengasingkan masyarakat dari terlibat dan menyokong perjuangan Islam melalui kaedah demokratis yang sah.[9]
  
  
  
• Namun demikian, di kalangan kaum liberal khususnya, buah pemikiran Ashmawi diterima dengan baik walaupun bukunya al-Islam al-Siyasi bukan satu karya yang berdasarkan kajian ilmiah. Ia hanyalah refleksi beliau terhadap situasi dan kondisi Islam di Mesir. Perbincangan mengenai Syari’ah misalnya tidak sama sekali merujuk kepada definisi para pakar Shari’ah. Buku yang tidak mengandungi bibliografi dan catatan kaki (kecuali ayat al-Qur’an dan satu dua buku) tidak pantas dianggap sebagai buku ilmiah dan kajian objektif terhadap Islam maupun pemikiran Islam apalagi menjadi rujukan dalam memahami Islam. Ironisnya, beliau kini dianggap salah seorang guru besar Islam liberal.[10]
  
  
  
• Antara Depolitisasi Islam dan Politisasi Islam
  
  
  
• Di mesir perdebatan di antara golongan Islamis dan sekularis cukup hangat dan seringkali berakhir dengan tragedi. Tokoh-tokoh sekular walaupun sebagiannya mempunyai latarbelakang agama yang cukup kuat seperti Ali Abd al-Raziq yang menentang keras dikaitkannya Islam dengan politik. Menurutnya, Islam hanya sebuah agama ritual, tidak ada sistem politik dalam Islam. Sistem politik Islam dikatakan rekayasa para ulama di zaman 'pertengahan'. Bagi menjawab kedudukan Rasulullah sebagai pemimpin dan pengasas Negara Islam Madinah, mereka mengatakan bahawa itu hanya satu kebetulan. [11]
  
  
  
• Nurcholish Madjid sejak tahun 70an telah menyarankan sekularisasi. Baginya Islam tidak lebih dari sekadar agama seperti agama-agama lain yang wujud di dunia.[12] Atas dasar ini, agama perlu dibedakan dan dipisahkan daripada politik. Oleh karena itu, menurut Nurcholish tidak ada politik Islam, ekonomi Islam pendidikan Islam dsb. Baginya negara hanyalah bagian dari aspek keduniaan yang bergantung sepenuhnya kepada nalar dan masyarakat, sedangkan agama berasal dari alam ghaib yang hanya berdimensikan spiritual dan personal. [13]
  
  
• Ashmawi, mengikuti jejak langkah Ali ‘Abd al-Raziq, menyatakan bahwa Tuhan menginginkan Islam sebagai agama tetapi manusia menginginkannya menjadi politik (ara>da Alla>h li al-Isla>m an yaku>na di>nan, wa ara>da bihi al-na>s an yaku>na siya>satan).[14] Baginya agama itu universal sifatnya, sedangkan politik itu partikular dan temporal. Maka keduanya tidak mungkin bersatu.
  
  
• Untuk menjawab keraguan yang ditimbulkan oleh Ashmawi ini perlu diklarifikasikan definisi din atau agama. Nyatanya bagi kaum liberal yang dimaksudkan dengan din dan agama adalah hal yang menyangkut hubungan manusia dengan Tuhan, maka agama tidak lebih dari sekadar urusan spiritual dan ritual demikianlah dinyatakan oleh para ahli filsafat, antropologis dan sosiologis. Lalu mengapakah Islam harus tunduk kepada kerangka pemikiran yang dibentuk oleh Barat yang sekular. Pada hakikatnya, Islam tidak hanya menyangkut perkara spiritual dan ritual tetapi juga segala bidang kehidupan manusia. Persoalan yang perlu dijawab adalah mengapa Islam harus dibatasi oleh konsepsi dan definisi yang dicipta oleh orang bukan Islam? Tidak mungkinkah Islam dinilai dan dirujuk mengikut kehendak Tuhan bukan keinginan manusia? Dalam framework pemikiran Islam, Islam yang primordial dan universal sifatnya mengatur dan memberi petunjuk pada perkara temporal dan partikular, dengan konsepsi sedemikian ajaran Islam secara hakikatnya membumi dan realistik.
  

• Seorang tokoh ilmuan di universitas Yordania, Fathi al-Durayni menyedari perbedaan konsep agama dan implikasinya terhadap hubungan antara agama dan politik. Dalam bukunya, Khas}a’is} al-Tashri>‘ al-Isla>mi> fi al-Siya>sah wa al-H}ukm, al-Durayni berpendapat bahwa Islam telah menimbulkan satu revolusi terhadap konsep agama.[15] Berbeda dengan agama lain, Islam menghubungkan agama dengan politik, agama dengan sains, dunia dengan akhirat. Hal-hal yang biasanya dilihat secara terpisah. Al-Durayni juga menjelaskan bahwa segala aktivitas seorang Muslim terutamanya aktivitas politik dihitung sebagai ibadah.[16] Ini sejajar dengan ungkapan Ibn Taymiyyah min a‘z}am wa>jiba>t al-di>n[17] (satu kewajiban agama yang utama).

• Pandangan serupa juga dikemukakan oleh al-Qaradawi, yang menurut Kurzman adalah salah seorang tokoh Islam Liberal.[18] Beliau mengatakan bahwa terdapat hubungan simbiosis antara Islam dengan politik sebagai sesuatu yang tidak terpisahkan daripada hakikat Islam itu sendiri. Penolakan dan pemisahan politik daripada Islam, menurut beliau merupakan satu kejahilan dan miskonsepsi terhadap hakikat Islam.[19]
  

• Memang Rasulullah s.a.w. bukan diutus sebagai pemimpin politik, tetapi sebagai Rasul. Tetapi perlu diketahui konsep kerasulan beliau tidak sebatas menyampaikan mesej Allah (dakwah). Yang paling berat adalah menjadi contoh dan tauladan dalam melaksanakan Islam sebagai cara hidup (way of life). Rasulullah membawa mesej perubahan, karena Islam yang dibawanya Islam yang mempunyai 'civilizing force'. Dalam masa yang singkat, beliau telah berhasil membuat perubahan dan reformasi ketamadunan di mana budaya, pemikiran dan sosio-politik bangsa Arab maju dan gemilang. Semua perubahan ini berlaku karena beliau telah membuat perancangan dan program yang jitu dan bijaksana. Ini dapat dilihat bagaimana beliau berhijrah, membina persaudaraan, membentuk tatanan sosial dan membangun ekonomi, politik, sosial umat Islam di Madinah. Pengkaji-pengkaji politik Islam setuju dengan pendapat prof. Muhammad Hamidullah yang mengatakan piagam Madinah yang dirumus oleh Rasulullah adalah satu perlembagaan pertama di dunia karena ia dicipta di masa dunia diperintah dengan sistem monarki tidak berperlembagaan dan tidak mengenal kedaulatan undang-undang (supremacy of law).[20] Ini tentunya bukan satu kebetulan.
  
  
  
• Sistem politik Islam memang sebagian besarnya merupakan ijtihad, al-Qur’an tidak menjabarkan secara detail tentang bentuk pemerintahan, mekanisma dan pelaksanaan lapangan. Tetapi cukup banyak prinsip-prinsip pemerintahan yang perlu menjadi pedoman dalam berpolitik. Dan ini sudah cukup untuk mewarnai sistem politik Islam dan membedakannya dengan sistem politik sekular atau sistem pemerintahan yang despotik, teokratik dsb. Selain daripada prinsip dan garis panduan yang diberikan dalam al-Qur’an dan al-Sunnah, Islam memberi kelonggaran untuk memikirkan sendiri kaedah dan bentuk pemerintahan yang diinginkan sesuai tuntutan zaman. Kelonggaran ini benar-benar mencerminkan dinamika Syari’ah dan rasionalitas Islam. Ia juga sesuai dengan objektif syari’ah untuk menjaga kemaslahatan dan kepentingan manusia.[21] Oleh itu, tantangan para ilmuan Islam adalah untuk membangun teori politik Islam yang berpijak pada kenyataan situasi dan kondisi hari ini tanpa membuang pedoman yang sudah diberikan oleh nas-nas yang qat’i(teks-teks agama yang definitif).
  
  
  
• Mungkin perlu dipertanyakan kepada kaum sekularis dan liberal, kalau pemisahan politik daripada Islam diterima mau di kemanakan prinsip-prinsip politik yang dijabarkan oleh al-Qur’an? Seperti kedaulatan Shari‘ah (12:40, 4:65, 5:44), prinsip Syura (3:159, 42:38), prinsip keadilan (4:58, 5:8, 57:25), prinsip kebebasan bersuara dan berpendapat (27:64, 16:125, 10:99), prinsip persamaan (49:13) dan pertanggungjawaban pemimpin (3:104). Di samping ratusan hadis yang menjelaskan banyak perkara yang berkaitan dengan politik. Pemisahan politik daripada Islam, pada akhirnya, bermakna menjadikan Islam agama kerohanian semata dan konsekwensinya pada penganut yang submissif, tunduk kepada apa jua bentuk pemerintahan dan tidak mempunyai visi perubahan. Islam seperti ini tidak ada bedanya dengan agama-agama lain, dan ini bermakna akan sia-sia Allah menurunkan Islam sebagai agama penutup dan rahmat bagi seluruh alam. Sudah tentu Islam yang lemah ini bukan Islam yang dilaksanakan oleh Rasulullah. Karena dengan pimpinan Rasulullah s.a.w. Islam mengubah masyarakat, mencipta sejarah dan membina tamadun yang gemilang. Islam pada masa itu membentuk manusia dan bukan dibentuk oleh manusia, menjadi subjek bukan objek, ya‘lu wala yu‘la ‘alayh.
  
  
  
  
• Kecendrungan sebagian orang menerima depolitisasi Islam adalah akibat daripada cara berfikir dikotomis. Yaitu untuk menolak politisasi Islam maka seseorang perlu menerima 'depolitisasi Islam'. Persoalannya apakah ada alasan yang cukup kuat untuk membenarkan dikotomi ini. Yang jelas umat Islam tidak perlu mempolitikkan Islam hanya semata-mata untuk berkuasa, karena dengan melaksanakan Islam sepenuhnya mereka dengan semula jadi akan memimpin dunia dan bukan dipimpin. Tidak perlu juga menolak hubungan politik dengan Islam karena politik menjadi alat yang sah dan mesti dimiliki untuk melakukan perubahan. Dengan memahami Islam sebagai satu cara hidup yang komprehensif di mana politik adalah satu aspek daripada beberapa aspek yang perlu disesuaikan dengan ajaran Islam maka tidak perlu istilah Islam politik atau Islam ritual dsb.
  
  
  
• Adanya politik dalam Islam bukan lesen bagi mana-mana golongan untuk mempolitikkan Islam. Penggunaan simbol-simbol Islam sebagai alat untuk kepentingan sendiri perlu dihindari.[22] Terjadinya perkara seumpama itu adalah lumrah kefanatikan terhadap ideologi atau agama tertentu. Penggunaan agama biasa dilakukan bukan saja oleh parti Islam yang hauskan sokongan, tetapi seringkali dilakukan oleh pemerintah untuk mendapatkan legitimasi dan mandat rakyat. Ringkasnya, umat Islam tidak harus memilih di antara politisasi Islam atau depolitisasi Islam seperti dalam pemikiran liberal.
  
  
  
• Mitos Teokrasi Islam
  

• Perdebatan di antara Islamis dan sekularis tentang politik Islam sentiasa bergulir di Mesir, Pakistan dan berbagai Negara Islam lainnya. Di antara tuduhan yang diungkapkan terhadap pendukung politik Islam adalah bahwa system politik Islam adalah sistem teokrasi yang despotic dan authoritarian. Asghar Ali Engineer, seorang lagi pemikir Islam Liberal, menuduh gerakan Jama’at-e-Islami yang dipimpin oleh Mawdudi berusaha mendirikan Negara teokrasi seperti yang telah didirikan di Iran.[23]
  Kebencian mereka terhadap teokrasi bisa dipahami, karena sistem tersebut memang sistem yang berdiri di atas legitimasi yang palsu. Klaim kesucian dan kebenaran oleh para pendeta gereja hanya berdasarkan dogma, dan sangat bertentangan dengan logika dan rasional. Nyatanya tidak ada hubungan dan komunikasi antara golongan ini dengan Tuhan. Oleh itu, klaim bahwa golongan clergy ini mempunyai kedua-dua kuasa temporal (politik) dan ecclesiastical (kuasa kerohanian) adalah tidak berasas sama sekali.
  
  
• Sejarah mencatat pemerintahan teokrasi di Barat pada zaman pertengahan sebagai satu pengalaman pahit yang menghantui masyarakat Barat hingga ke hari ini. Abad ketujuhbelas mencatat penolakan yang keras terhadap otoritas gereja, Pemerintahan teokratik dan despotik gereja selama hampir seribu tahun menjadi pengalaman pahit Barat berada dalam pemerintahan agama. Tak pelak lagi, pengalaman pahit ini membuahkan kebencian masyarakat terhadap agama pada umumnya, dan kebencian terhadap pemerintahan agama (teokrasi) khususnya. Seorang sejarawan renaisans, Gucciardini, pada tahun 1529 menulis:
  
  
• Tidak ada orang yang lebih jijik pada diri saya selain dari ambisi, ketamakan, dan kejangakan para wakil Tuhan ini. Bukan hanya karena masing-masing di antara mereka ini menjengkelkan, tetapi karena setiap dan semuanya tidak pantas menjadi orang yang menyatakan diri mempunyai hubungan khusus dengan Tuhan….seandainya tidak demikian keadaannya, saya akan membela Martin Luther layaknya membela diri saya sendiri, bukan untuk membebaskan diri saya dari ketentuan-ketentuan yang, sebagaimana umumnya dipahami dan dijelaskan, diajarkan agama Kristen pada kami, tetapi untuk menjadikan sekawanan bangsat ini kembali ke tempat yang semestinya, sehingga mereka bisa dipaksa untuk hidup tanpa peran sebagai wakil Tuhan atau tanpa kekuasaan.[24]
  
  
• Klaim-klaim kesucian dan kependetaan seperti di atas tidak wujud dalam Islam, maka dari itu ketakutan golongan sekularis dan liberal hanya berdasarkan prasangka. Dalam Islam tidak ada institusi clergy (golongan agama), terma clergy tidak dikenal dalam sejarah Islam. keilmuan Islam terbuka untuk siapa saja. Seseorang itu diangkat menjadi yang berotoritas dalam bidang keilmuan tertentu oleh komunitas ilmuan dan masyarakat. Ulama tidak berkuasa untuk memaksakan ketaatan, memonopoli kebenaran dan mengklaim berbicara atas nama tuhan. Maka dari itu tidak ada yang mensyaratkan seorang imam atau pemimpin negara Islam mestilah dari golongan ulama. Tetapi hanya mensyaratkan mestilah dari orang-orang yang berilmu.
  

• Seandainya bisa dibuktikan adanya ajaran Islam yang sama dengan teokrasi, sebagaimana dalam sejarah kristiani, barulah tuduhan teokrasi terhadap sistem pemerintahan Islam mempunyai asas yang kuat. Tanpa adanya pembuktian tersebut maka kaum sekularis dan liberal telah berlaku tidak adil dan objektif terhadap Islam.Sudah terlalu biasa pada hari ini Islam disalah tafsir dan dizalimi. Hegemoni tamadun Barat yang areligius menjadikan umat Islam, khususnya pejuang Islam, tersepit dan terisolasi. Usaha westernisasi ini tidak akan berhasil seandainya tidak ada di kalangan intelektual muslim yang mendukung obsesi Barat ini.
  Berbeda dengan agama kristen, Islam tidak pernah secara eksplisit maupun implisit mendukung sistem teokrasi. Dalam al-Qur'an titel khalifah Allah diberikan kepada umat manusia yang sanggup mengemban misi tersebut.2:31. Sejarah Islam juga mencatatkan Rasulullah dengan jelas menolak kependetaan yang menjadi ciri kehidupan gereja. Demikian juga Abu Bakar menolak untuk diberikan titel khali>fatulla>h sebaliknya beliau hanya ingin dipanggil khali>fat Rasu>lillah.
  

• Di samping itu, Islam tidak menerima konsep kehidupan suci vis-a-vis kehidupan profan. Golongan agama sebagai orang-orang suci dan yang lainnya tidak suci. Kesucian seseorang tidak diukur dari luaran dan dimana dia berada, bahkan amalannya sekalipun tidak bisa memastikan seseorang masuk surga, karena Allah saja yang tahu apa yang ada dalam hatinya. Kemuliaan disisi Allah diberikan kepada orang yang bertaqwa. Walauapapun profesinya di manapun dia berada selagi dia memiliki ketinggian iman dan taqwa maka dialah orang yang mulia di sisi Allah. Sebaliknya seorang yang menghabiskan umurnya dalam tempat ibadah belum tentu memiliki hati yang bersih dan suci.
  

• Berbeda dengan agama lain, konsep Ibadah dalam Islam tidak terbatas hanya pada amalan ritual akan tetapi merangkumi kehidupan seharian seorang muslim yang menunjukkan keikhlasan dan ketaatannya pada Allah SWT. Dalam Islam tantangan besar seorang muslim bukan mengamalkan amalan tertentu di tempat tertentu akan tetapi bagaimana seseorang bisa menjadi hamba Allah sekaligus khalifah-Nya di muka bumi. Amanah ini hanya bisa diemban dengan mengimbangi keperluan rohani dan jasmani, spiritual dan material. Menfokuskan dan menyalurkan seluruh usaha untuk pembangunan spiritual semata hanya akan mengakibatkan kehidupan yang pincang. Demikianlah rahasia mengapa Rasulullah menolak rahba>niyyah (kependetaan) dalam Islam, prinsip ini juga bertepatan dengan mesej yang ingin disampaikan oleh al-Qur'an: “warahba>niyyatan ibtada'u>ha ma katabna>ha> 'alayhim” (dan kependetaan yang mereka ciptakan, sesuatu yang tidak pernah Kami turunkan) (al-Hadid, 57:27, al-A‘raf 7:32)
  

• Dalam tulisannya, Muhammad al-Ghazali bahkan mengkritisi kecenderungan sebagian orang Islam yang mencoba melepaskan diri material dan keduniaan atas anggapan perhiasan dunia itu bisa menghalangnya dari jalan Allah, beliau mengatakan justru untuk berjuang di jalan Allah harta benda sangat penting untuk dimiliki, baginya konsep zuhud yang benar tidak menjadikan hidup kita mundur.[25]
  
  
• Polemik Islam dan Demokrasi
  
  
• Dalam menangani isu demokrasi para sarjana Muslim pada dasarnya terbagi kepada dua golongan. Golongan radikal menolak demokrasi atas beberapa alasan utamanya adalah bahwa dalam sistem seperti ini kedaulatan mutlak diberikan kepada rakyat khususnya dalam membuat undang-undang. Ini bertentangan dengan sistem politik Islam yang menuntut kedaulatan mutlak diberikan kepada Allah (al-h}a>kimiyyah lilla>h) dengan menjadikan Shari'ah sumber utama perundangan (supremacy of the Shari'ah). Pengkritik keras demokrasi, seperti Mawdudi dan Sayyid Qutb, setelah menolak demokrasi Barat tidak pula menjadikan teokrasi sebagai bentuk pemerintahan Islam. Qutb menjelaskan bahwa Islam menolak sistem teokrasi yang pernah berlaku di Barat pada era kegelapan. Karna kuasa Tuhan tidak boleh diwakili oleh satu golongan yang mengklaim ada hubungan komunikasi dengan Tuhan.[26] Mawdudi malah mengatakan bahwa Islam berada di tengah-tengah antara keduanya. Oleh itu, kesan dari pengaruh dan dominasi terminologi Barat, beliau mencipta nama baru bagi sistem politik Islam yaitu theodemocracy yaitu campuran dan jalan tengah di antara theocracy dan demokrasi.[27]
  
  
  
• Golongan moderat yang diwakili oleh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, al-Ghannushi dan Fathi Osman, menerima demokrasi dengan beberapa catatan. Demokrasi tersebut mesti disesuaikan dengan Shari'at Islam dan tidak menjadikan nasionalisme dan perkauman lebih utama berbanding dengan keIslaman. Golongan ini meyakini pada dasarnya prinsip-prinsip demokrasi telah ada dalam Shari’ah Islam seperti kekuasaan mayoritas, kedaulatan undang-undang, dan pemerintahan perwakilan. Bahkan al-Ghannushi dan Huwaidi menyatakan bahwa sebenarnya Barat telah menghasilkan sistem pemerintahan yang sebagian besar elemennya dicedok daripada khazanah keilmuan umat Islam (seperti juga ilmu kedokteran dan matematik) di Andalusia pada Abad ke 14-15M. Oleh itu tidak ada salahnya umat Islam pada hari ini memanfaatkan kembali hasil eksperimen Barat yang teorinya berasal dari khazanah mereka sendiri.
  
  
  
• Apapun kecendrungan sarjana Muslim dalam menghadapi demokrasi, mereka semua berpegang kepada prinsip supremacy of the Shari'ah: bahwa dalam bentuk apapun sebuah Negara Islam itu yang paling penting adalah Shari‘ah mesti berdaulat. Kedaulatan Shari‘ah ini pada prinsipnya akan tidak memberi ruang kepada pemerintahan despotik dan dapat menghapuskan dengan tuntas kezaliman, diskriminasi dan korupsi. Para sarjana Muslim juga setuju bahwa sistem politik Islam amat bertentangan dengan sistem teokrasi. Dalam sejarah Barat pemerintahan teokrasi yang memberikan Gereja kuasa mutlak adalah bentuk pemerintahan yang tidak rasional, anti sains dan anti kemajuan. Sedangkan pemerintahan Islam yang dicontohkan oleh para Sahabat adalah pemerintahan yang rasional dan mendukung kemajuan dalam bidang apapun. Jadi amat jelas tuduhan musuh-musuh Islam yang menyamakan pemerintahan Islam dengan teokrasi tidak berasas sama sekali. Dalam kepimpinan sayyidina Umar saja terlalu banyak fakta sejarah yang membuktikannya.
  
  
  *Ditulis Oleh Khalif Muammar. Penulis adalah Alumni ISTAC dan kandidat Ph.D. di tempat yang sama. Beliau bertugas sebagai peneliti di Akademi Kajian Ketamadunan dan Dosen Kolej Dar al-Hikmah, Malaysia.
  
  
  [1] Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, Naqd al-Khitab al-Dini (Kaherah: Sina publication, 1994),37.
  [2] William Walter. Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy (Georgetown Univ. Press, 2003), 27-33; Noreena Hertz. The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy (New York: Harper Bussiness, 2003), 11-20.
  [3] Noam Chomsky. Hegemony or Survival: American Quest for Global Dominance (Metropolitan Books, 2003). Pp.13-23.
  [4] Mathias Brockers. Konspirasi, Teori-teori Konspirasi dan Rahasia 11.9, (terj.).( Jakarta: Ina Publikatama, 2003), 264-9
  [5] Sukron Kamil, Islam dan Demokrasi (Jakarta: Gaya Media Pratama, 2002), 66
  [6] Nurcholish Madjid, “Beberapa Pemikiran Ke Arah Investasi Demokrasi” dalam Mun’im Sirri (ed.) Islam Liberalisme Demokrasi (Jakarta: Paramadina, 2002), 277-294
  [7] Muhammad Said al-‘Ashmawi , Al-Isla>m al-Siya>si>, Kaherah: al-Intisha>r al-‘Arabi>, 412.
  [8] Azyumardi Azra, Islam Substantif (Bandung: Mizan, 2000),155-156.
  [9] Yu>suf al-Qarad}a>wi>, Min Fiqh al-Dawlah fi al-Isla>m (Kaherah: Dar al-Shuruq, 1996), 88-89.
  [10] Ini bisa dilihat dalam buku yang diterbitkan oleh JIL (Jaringan Islam Liberal): syari’at islam: Pandangan Muslim Liberal. Editor Burhanuddin. (Jakarta: Jaringan Islam Liberal dan The Asia Foundation, 2003).
  [11] Ali ‘Abd al-Raziq, Al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm: Bahth fi al-Khilafah wa al-Hukumah fi al-Islam (Kaherah: al-Hay’ah al-Misriyyah al-‘Ammah li al-Kitab, 1925), 32-63.
  [12] Nurcholish Madjid, “The Necessity of Renewing Islamic Thought and Reinvigorating Religious Understanding”, dalam Liberal Islam, 293
  [13] Ibid., 294.
  [14] Muhammad Said al-‘Ashmawi, al-Isla>m al-Siya>si>, Kaherah: al-Intisha>r al-‘Arabi, 27.
  [15] Fath}i> al-Durayni>, Khas}a>’is} al-Tashri>‘ al-Isla>mi> fi al-Siya>sah wa al-H}ukm, cet. Ke-2 (Beirut: Muassasat al-Risalah, 1987), 14.
  [16] Ibid, 15.
  [17] Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Siya>sah al-Shar‘iyyah fi Is}la>h al-Ra‘i> wa al-Ra‘iyyah, (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, n.d.), 137
  [18] Satu pandangan yang mengelirukan dan tidak dapat diterima oleh mayoritas masyarakat dunia. Justru di kalangan masyarakat Barat sendiri beliau dicap fundamentalis. Lihat Liberal Islam (Oxford University Press, 1998), 196.
  [19] Yu>suf al-Qarad}a>wi>, Min Fiqh al-Dawlah fi al-Islam, 26
  [20] Muhamamd Salim al-Awwa., Fi al-Niza>m al-Siyasi li al-Dawlah al-Islamiyyah (Kaherah: Dar al-Shuruq, 1989), 137.
  [21] Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah,.Al-T}uruq al-H}ukmiyyah (Beirut: Da>r al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1995),11-18.
  [22] Mengenai politisasi Islam ini digambarkan dengan jelas oleh Azyumardi Azra dalam Islam Substantif. ,133.
  [23] Asghar Ali Engineer, The Islamic State (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing, 1996), 133-135.
  [24] Bertrand Russel, History of Western Philosophy. Edisi terjemahan Indonesia (Jakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2004), 659.
  [25] Muhammad al-Ghazali, Ha>dha Di>nuna> (Dawhah: Dar al-Thaqafah, 1985), 47.
  [26] Sayyid Qutb. Ma'a>lim fi al-Tariq (Beirut: Dar al-Shuruq, 1982), 68, 118.[27] Abul A'la Mawdudi, Islamic Law and Constitution ed. Khurshid Ahmad. (Lahore: Islamic Publication, 1967),147-148.

SUFISM AND QUANTUM PHYSICS

Sufism and Quantum Physics

• There are parallels in Sufism and in quantum theory. A view of the world is very similar to the views, held by Sufis and modern physicists. In contrast to the mechanistic world view of the Westerners, for the Sufis all things and events perceived by the senses are interrelated, connected, and are but different aspects or manifestations of the same ultimate reality. For Sufis “Enlightenment” is an experience to become aware of the unity and mutual interrelation of all things, to transcend the notion of an isolated individual self, and to identify themselves with the ultimate reality.

• An exact science is expressed in the highly sophisticated language of modern mathematics, whereas Tasawwuf is based on meditation and insists on the fact that Sufis’ insight cannot be communicated verbally. Reality as experienced by the Sufis is completely indeterminate and undifferentiated. Sufis never see the intellect as their source of knowledge but use it merely to analyze and interpret their personal Tasawwuf experience. The parallel between scientific experiments and Tasawwuf experiences may seem surprising in view of the very different nature of these acts of observation. Physicists perform experiments involving an elaborate teamwork and a highly sophisticated technology, whereas the Sufis obtain their knowledge purely through introspection, without any machinery, in the privacy of meditation or Dhikr. To repeat an experiment in modern elementary particle physics one has to undergo many years of training. Similarly, a deep Tasawwuf experience requires, generally, many years of training under an experienced master. The complexity and efficiency of the physicist’s technical apparatus is matched, if not surpassed, by that of the mystic’s consciousness-both physical and spiritual-in deep Dhikr. Thus the scientists and the Sufis have developed highly sophisticated methods of observing nature which are inaccessible to the layperson.
  

• DHIKR
  

• The basic aim of Dhikr is to silence the thinking mind and to shift the awareness from the rational to the intuitive mode of consciousness. The silencing of the mind is achieved by concentrating one’s attention on a single item, like one’s breathing, the sound of Allah or La Ilaha Illallah. Even performing Salat is considered as Dhikr to silence the rational mind. Thus Salat leads to the feeling of peace and serenity which is characteristic of the more static forms of Dhikr. These skills are used to develop the meditative mode of consciousness. In Dhikr, the mind is emptied of all thoughts and concepts and thus prepared to function for long periods through its intuitive mode. When the rational mind is silenced, the intuitive mode produces an extraordinary awareness; the environment is experienced in a direct way without the filter of conceptual thinking. The experience of oneness with the surrounding environment is the main characteristic of this meditative state. It is a state of consciousness where every form of fragmentation has ceased, fading away into undifferentiated unity.

• INSIGHT INTO REALITY
  Sufism is based on direct insights into the nature of reality, and physics is based on the observation of natural phenomena in scientific experiments. In physics the model and theories are approximate and are basic to modern scientific research. Thus the aphorism of Einstein, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” Whenever the essential nature of things is analyzed by the intellect, it must seem absurd or paradoxical.

• This has always been recognized by the Sufis, but has become a problem in science only very recently, e.g. Light as wave or photon or duality of light. Great variety of natural phenomena belonged to the scientists’ macroscopic environment and thus to the realm of their sensory experience. Since the images and intellectual concepts of their language were abstracted from this very experience, they were sufficient and adequate to describe the natural phenomena. However the atomic and subatomic world itself lies beyond our sensory perception. The knowledge about matter at this level is no longer derived from direct sensory experience, and therefore our ordinary language, which its images from the world of the senses, is no longer adequate to describe the observed phenomena. As we penetrate deeper and deeper into nature, we have to abandon more and more of the images and concepts of ordinary language. Probing inside the atom and investigating its structure, science transcended the limits of our sensory imagination. From this point on, it could no longer rely with absolute certainty on logic and common sense.

• Quantum physics provided the scientists with the first glimpses of the essential nature of things. Like the Sufis, physicists were now dealing with a nonsensory experience of reality and, like the Sufis, they had to face the paradoxical aspects of this experience. From then on therefore, the models, and images of modern physics become akin to those of Tasawwuf of the Sufis.
  

• COMMUNICATION PROBLEM
  

• Scientists realized that our common language is not only inaccurate, but totally inadequate to describe the atomic and subatomic reality. With the advent of Relativity and Quantum mechanics in modern physics it was very clear that this new knowledge transcends classical logic and that it cannot be described in ordinary language. Similarly in Tasawwuf it has always been realized that reality transcends ordinary language and the Sufis were not afraid to go beyond logic and common concepts. The problem of language faced by the Sufi is exactly the same as the problem the modern physicist faces. Both the physicist and the Sufi want to communicate their knowledge, and when they do so with words their statements are paradoxical and full of logical contradictions. These paradoxes are characteristic of all who practice Tasawwuf and since the beginning of the 20th century they are also characteristic of modern physics.
  

• DUALITY OF LIGHT
  

• In Quantum Physics, many of the paradoxical situations are connected with the dual nature of light or – more generally – of electromagnetic radiation. Light produces interference phenomena, which is associated with the waves of light. This is observed when two sources of light are used resulting in bright and dim patterns of light. On the other hand, electromagnetic radiation also produces the “photoelectric” effect: when short wave length light such as ultraviolet light or x-rays or gamma rays strike the surface of some metals, they can “knock off” electrons from the surface of the metal, and therefore it must consist of moving particles. The question which puzzled physicists so much in the early stages of quantum theory was how electromagnetic radiation could simultaneously consist of particles (that is of entities confined to a very small volume) and of waves, which are spread out over a large area in space. Neither language nor imagination could deal with this kind of reality very well. Sufism has developed several different ways of dealing with the paradoxical aspects of reality. Works of Attar, Hafiz, Ibn Arabi, Rumi, Bastami, etc show they are full of intriguing contradictions and their compact, powerful, and extremely poetic language is meant to arrest the reader’s mind and throw it off its familiar tracks of logical reasoning. Heisenberg asked Bohr: Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?
  

• Whenever the essential nature of things is analyzed by the intellect, it must seem absurd or paradoxical. This has always been recognized by the Sufis, but has become a problem in science in the 20 the century. The macroscopic world is in the realm of our sensory experience. Through this sensory experience one can draw images, intellectual concepts and express them in a language. This language was sufficient and adequate to describe the natural phenomena. The Newtonian mechanistic model of the universe described macroscopic world. In the 20th century the existence of atoms and subatomic particles or the ultimate “building blocks” of nature was experimentally verified. The atomic and subatomic world itself lies beyond our sensory perception. The knowledge about matter at this level is no longer derived from direct sensory experience, and therefore our ordinary language, which takes its images from the world of the senses, is no longer adequate to describe the observed phenomena. As we penetrate deeper and deeper into nature, we have to abandon more and more of the images and concepts of ordinary language. From this point on, it could no longer rely with absolute certainty on logic and common sense. Quantum physics provided the scientists with the first glimpse of the essential nature of things. Like the Sufis the physicists were now dealing with a nonsensory experience of reality and, like the Sufis, they had to face the paradoxical aspects of this experience.
  

• MODERN PHYSICS
  

• According to the Sufis, the direct mystical experience of reality is a momentous event, which shakes the very foundations of one’s worldview, that is the most startling event that could ever happen in the realm of human consciousness (as-Shuhud). Upsetting every form of standardized experience. Some Sufis describe it as “the bottom of a pail breaking through.”
  

• Physicists in the early part of the 20th century felt much the same way when the foundations of their world-view were shaken by the new experience of the atomic reality, and they described the experience in terms which were often very similar to those used by the Sufis. Thus Heisenberg wrote: “…recent developments in modern physics can only be understood when one realizes that here the foundations of physics have started moving; and that this motion has caused the feeling that the ground would be cut from science.” The discoveries of modern physics necessitated profound changes of concepts like space, time, matter, object, cause and effect, etc., and these concepts are so basic to our way of experiencing the world, that the physicists who were forced to change them felt something of a shock. Out of these changes a new and radically different world-view is born which is still in the process of formation. Quantum theory implies an essential interconnectedness of nature. Quantum theory forces us to see the universe not as a collection of physical objects, but rather as a complicated web of relations between the various parts of a unified whole. This is the way the Sufis have experienced the world.
  

• SPACE-TIME
  

• The Sufis seem to be able to attain nonordinary states of consciousness (Shuhud) in which they transcend the three-dimensional world of everyday life to experience a higher, multidimensional reality. In relativistic physics if one can visualize the four-dimensional space-time reality, there would be nothing paradoxical at all. The Sufis have notions of space and time, which are very similar to those implied by relativity theory. In Tasawwuf, there seems to be a strong intuition for the “space-time” character of reality. The Sufis have experienced a state of complete dissolution (Fana) where there is no more distinction between mind and body, subject and object. In a state of pure experience, there is no space without time, no time without space, they are interpenetrating. For the physicist the notion of space-time is based on scientific experiments whereas for the Sufi it is based on Tasawwuf. The relativistic models and theories of modern physics are illustrations of the two basic elements of Tasawwuf world-view-the Tahwid of the universe and its intrinsically dynamic character. Space is curved to different degrees, and time flows at different rates in different parts of the universe. Our notions of a three-dimensional Euclidean space and of linear flow of time are limited to our ordinary experience of the physical world and have to be completely abandoned when we extend this experience. The Sufis talk about an extension of their experience of the world in higher states of consciousness, and they affirm that these states involve a radically different experience of space and time. They emphasize not only that they go beyond ordinary three-dimensional space in meditation, but also - and even more forcefully-that ordinary awareness of time is transcended. Instead of a linear succession of instants, they experience an infinite, timeless, and yet dynamic present. In the spiritual world there are no time divisions such as the past, present and future; for they have contracted themselves into a single moment of the present where life quivers in its true sense.
  

• MASS-ENERGY EQUIVALENCE
  

• Einstein showed the mass-energy equivalence, through a simple mathematical equation, E=mc*2. Physicists measure the masses of particles in the corresponding energy units. Mass is nothing but a form of energy. This discovery has forced us to modify our concept of a particle in an essential way. Hence particles are seen as "Qunata" or bundles of energy. Thus particles are not seen as consisting of any basic "stuff." But energy is associated with activity, with processes, which means that the nature of subatomic particles is intrinsically dynamic and they are forms in four-dimensional entities in space-time. Therefore subatomic particles have a space aspect and a time aspect. Their space aspect makes them appear as objects with a certain mass, their time aspect as processes involving the equivalent energy. When subatomic particles are observed, we never see them as any substance; but what we observe is continuously changing patterns of one to the other or a continuos dance of energy. The particles of the subatomic world are not only active in the sense of moving around very fast; they themselves are processes. The existence of matter and its activity cannot be separated. They are but different aspects of the same space-time reality.
  

• The Sufis, in their nonordinary states of consciousness, seem to be aware of the interpenetration of space and time at a macroscopic level. Thus they see the macroscopic world in a way which is very similar to the physicists’ idea of subatomic particles. For the Sufis "all compounded things are impermanent" - fanah. The reality underlying all phenomena is beyond all forms and defies all description and specification, hence to be formless, empty or void. To the Sufis all phenomena in the world are nothing but the illusory manifestation of the mind and have no reality on their own.
  

• CONCLUSION
  

• The principal theories and models of modern physics lead to a view of the world, which is internally consistent, and in perfect harmony with the views of Tasawwuf. The significance of the parallels between the world-views of physicists and Sufis is beyond any doubt. Both emerge when man inquires into the essential nature of things-into the deeper realms of matter in physics; into the deeper realms of consciousness in Tasawwuf-when he discovers a different reality behind the superficial mundane appearance of everyday life. Physicists derive their knowledge from experiments whereas Sufis from meditative insights. The Sufi looks within and explores his or her consciousness at its various levels. The experience of one’s body is, in fact, often seen as the key to the Tasawwuf experience of the world. Another similarity between the physicist and the Sufi is the fact that their observations take place in realms, which are inaccessible to the ordinary senses. To the physicist the realms of the atomic and subatomic world; in Tasawwuf they are nonordinary states of consciousness in which the sense world is transcended. Both for the physicists and the Sufis, the multidimensional experiences transcend the sensory world and are therefore almost impossible to express in ordinary language.
  

• Quantum Physics and Tasawwuf are two complementary manifestations of the human mind; of its rational and intuitive faculties. The modern physicist experiences the world through an extreme specialization of the rational mind; the Sufi through an extreme specialization of the intuitive mind. Both of them are necessary for a fuller understanding of the world. Tasawwuf experience is necessary to understand the deepest nature of things and science is essential for modern life. Therefore we need a dynamic interplay between Tasawwuf intuition and scientific analysis.

• By:Ibrahim bin Syed

EPISTEMOLOGY

EPISTEMOLOGY

• Epistemology is the study of knowledge. The word itself originates from the Greek words episteme + logos. Epistemic knowledge is not about what we know, but about what it means to know. It is helpful to note the basic (Socratic) distinction made between beliefs, which hold to opinions, and knowledge, which holds to 'truth'. Knowledge concerns apodictic facts that are absolute and simply cannot be false (while opinions can be and often are false). According to Karl Popper, the only way we can distinguish between truth and not-truth is by subjecting test-statements to experimental invalidation. Plato thought otherwise; he believed that truth is not subject to invalidation. So then the epistemological question: Where does our knowledge come from? And to take it further (as many philosophers have): What are the limits of human knowledge? Here one should read up on the two main competing philosophical branches of the early modern age: Rationalism and Empiricism. Rationalist thinkers like Descartes argue that all knowledge comes from reason, and everything in the world of homo cogitans is fundamentally rational. It is through the human mind that the human knows. Empiricists (at that point, the British thinkers: Berkeley, Hume, Locke) insist that most, if not all, *real* human knowledge can only be arrived at through human experience. It is through the human senses that the human knows. There is also the theologically-driven idea of knowledge as (divine) revelation ( Mohammed and the Holy Quran). There is an interesting blurring of the lines separating belief and knowledge here. St. Augustine gives us an eloquent discussion of reason vs. faith.
  
  
• MAIN SCHOOLS

• Rationalism is a philosophical movement declaring that the most certain form of knowledge is derived from reason and that our senses are not reliable submitters of information about the outer world. The most famous rationalists were Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, creating theories of knowledge totally independent from any experience. The senses, according to the rationalists, can not tell us real truth, for example: we could dream that we are the king of the world and not truly be, but the angles of a triangle still sum up to 180 degrees. Knowledge from reason alone and not experience is known as a priori. Plato is considered by many to be the main precursor to rationalism, whereas his student, Aristotle, is often considered to be a precursor to empiricism.
  

• Empiricism is a philosophical idea based on the idea that all reliable knowledge about the world is gained in the process of experience. Famous empiricists were Hume, Locke and Berkley, basing themselves on ideas already postulated by Aristotle, that we are born with the Tabula Rasa which receives throughout our lives information on which it can base all thinking and knowing. The movement of empiricism was in part a countermovement to what Descartes and Spinoza had proposed as rationalism. Knowledge derived from experience is called a posteriori.
  
  
• Pragmatism is a philosophy that was developed and passed on by Peirce, Quine, James, and others.
  The Correspondence Theory of Truth, which was held by Aristotle among others, holds that when we say something is true, this means that my understanding of reality corresponds with reality. So if I say that the Sun revolves around the Earth, it is not true because this does not correspond to reality. On the other hand, a Pragmatist would say that if it "works" for you, if it does not make your life problematic and has no significant impact on your life, then it is "true" in the sense that it works; it's pragmatic. This is similar to the perspectivist view adopted by Nietzsche.

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY

Introduction to Philosophy/What is Philosophy

Definition & Meaning

• Philosophy is a broad field of knowledge in which the definition of knowledge itself is one of the subjects investigated. It spans the nature of the universe, the mind, and the body; the relationships between all three, and between people. Philosophy is a field of inquiry – the pursuit of wisdom; the predecessor and complement of science, developing the issues which underly science and pondering those questions which are beyond the scope of science.
  
• Using Philosophy
  

• The essence of philosophy is the study and development of fundamental ideas and methods that are not adequately addressed in specialized empirical disciplines, such as physics or history. As such, philosophy provides the foundations upon which all belief structures and fields of knowledge are built. It is responsible for the definitions of, and the approaches used to develop the theories of, such diverse fields as religion, language, science, law, psychology, mathematics, and politics. It also examines and develops its own structure and procedures, and when it does so is called metaphilosophy: the philosophy of philosophy.
  Philosophy has a rich literary heritage, including the writings and teachings of profound thinkers from many cultures throughout history. Philosophers seek to understand the principles that underlie all knowledge and being. For this purpose, they develop methods of thinking, including logic, introspection, and meditation. Applying these methods, they investigate the most fundamental questions, such as "What is the nature of the universe?" (metaphysics), "What do we know, and how do we know it?" (epistemology), "What is the difference between good and evil?" (ethics), "What is beauty?" (aesthetics), and "What is the meaning of life?" (teleology).
  

• Philosophical Perspectives & Traditions
  

• 'Philosophy' translates literally from the original Greek as 'love of wisdom'. 'What is philosophy', is itself a philosophical question. This is a clue to the nature of philosophy. It is very general in scope; so general that it, perhaps uniquely among the disciplines, includes itself in its scope. What is clear is that philosophy is, in some sense, thinking about thinking.
  In the analytic tradition of North America and the UK, philosophy is quite technical. It centres on logic and conceptual analysis. Topics at its centre include the theory of knowledge, ethics, the nature of language, and the nature of mind.
  

• Other traditions view philosophy as the study of the arts and science of life: a general theory and a commendation of way of life. In this sense, philosophy is concerned with the practical bits of how to live rather than a theoretical attempt to understand. "Don't try to figure out why - just try get on with things the way they are."
  

• In the analytic tradition, philosophy is something you do. In other traditions, philosophy is a body of knowledge to be mastered. It is possible to exaggerate these differences for when philosophy is not dogma each tradition pays some homage to the other.
  

• In the Western world, at one time the term 'philosophy' covered all disciplines. Over time, as the corpus of human knowledge grew, various disciplines emerged, each with their own methodologies and domains of study, and these disciplines became to a large extent autonomous. For example, if you go into a public library that uses the Dewey decimal classification system, you will find that psychology books have a classmark starting with 150 - right in the middle of the philosophy section. This is because at the time the system was created, in the latter half of the 19th century, psychology was only just beginning to emerge as a distinct discipline. Another example is the term 'natural philosophy', which was once used to mean science, or more particularly physics. By this view, what is called 'philosophy' at any time in history are those provinces of human knowledge which have not yet come of age, which not yet developed their own autonomous character and status.
  

• These independent disciplines do have their own philosophies; so there is a philosophy of science, a philosophy of mathematics, a philosophy of psychology, and so on. When studying in these areas, one looks at methodological issues or examines some of the core concepts of the discipline, as well as various ethical issues.
  

• There are domains which definitely belong in a philosophy department. Epistemology is concerned with 'how do I know what I know?', Ontology with 'what is there?', Ethics with 'how should one conduct oneself?'. Logic is concerned with proper reasoning. Many other disciplines exist within philosophy.
  
  

• The Branches of Philosophy
  

• In order to narrow the aims of discussion philosophy was broken into branches. Traditionally philosophy has been broken into four main branches; however we would like to add a fifth branch in our text
  

• Epistemology
  

• Epistemology, from the Greek words episteme (knowledge) and logos (word/speech) is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge.
  
  
  
• Metaphysics
  

• Metaphysics (derived from the Greek words "ta meta ta physika biblia") - meaning 'the book that follows the physics book'. It was the way students referred to a specific book in the works of Aristotle, and it was a book on First Philosophy. (The assumption that the word means "beyond physics" is misleading) Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of "first principles" and "being" (ontology). In other words, Metaphysics is the study of the most general aspects of reality, such as substance, identity, the nature of the mind, and free will.
  

• Logic
  

• Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy amongst philosophers (see below). However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments.
  

• Ethics
  

• Ethics is a general term for what is often described as the "science (study) of morality". In philosophy, ethical behavior is that which is "good" or "right." The Western tradition of ethics is sometimes called moral philosophy.
  

• Other Branches
  

• Philosophy of Education: Fairly self-explanatory. A minor branch, mainly concerned with what is the correct way to educate a person. Classic works include Plato's Republic, Locke's Thoughts Concerning Education, and Rousseau's Emile.
  

• Philosophy of History: Fairly minor branch (not as minor as education), although highly important to Hegel and those who followed him, most notably Marx. It is the philosophical study of history, particularly concerned with the question whether history (i.e. the universe and/or humankind) is progressing towards a specific end? Hegel argued that it was, as did Marx. Classic works include Vico's New Science, and Hegel and Marx's works.
  

• Philosophy of Language: Ancient branch of philosophy which gained prominence in the last century under Wittgenstein. Basically concerned with how our languages affect our thought. Wittgenstein famously asserted that the limits of our languages mark the limits of our thought. Classic works include Plato's Cratylus, Locke's Essay, and Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
  

• Philosophy of Law: Also called Jurisprudence. Study of law attempting to discern what the best laws might be, how laws came into being in the first place, attempting to delimit human laws from natural laws, whether we should always obey the law, and so on. Law isn't often directly dealt with by philosophers, but much of political philosophy obviously has a bearing on it.
  

• Philosophy of Mathematics: Study of mathematics concerned with issues such as, is mathematics real or created by us, is it necessary to understand the world, do perfect mathematical forms exist in the real world, and so on. Principia Mathematica is almost certainly the most important work in this field.
  

• Philosophy of Mind: Study of the mind, attempting to ascertain exactly what the mind is, how it interacts with our body, do other minds exist, how does it work, and so on. Probably the most popular branch of philosophy right now, it has expanded to include issues of AI. Classic works include Plato's Republic and Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, although every major philosopher has had some opinion at least on what the mind is and how it works.
  

• Philosophy of Politics: Closely related to ethics, this is a study of government and nations, particularly how they came about, what makes good governments, what obligations citizens have towards their government, and so on. Classic works include Plato's Republic, Hobbes' Leviathan, Locke's Two Treatises, and J.S. Mill's On Liberty.
  

• Philosophy of Religion: Theology is concerned with the study of God, recommending the best religious practises, how our religion should shape our life, and so on. Philosophy of religion is concerned with much the same issues, but where Theology uses religious works, like the Bible, as it's authority, philosophy likes to use reason as the ultimate authority.
  

• Philosophy of Science: Study of science concerned with whether scientific knowledge can be said to be certain, how we obtain it, can science really explain everything, does causation really exist, can every event in the universe be described in terms of physics and so on. Also popular in recent times, classic works include Hume's Treatise on Human Nature, Kripke's Naming and Necessity, Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
  
  

• Doing Philosophy
  

• Many fields can be studied and learned without ever actually working with the tools in the field. For instance, chemistry can be learned in depth without ever picking up a test tube or mixing ionic compounds. Philosophy, however, is more about the methodology behind deriving answers than it is about the answers themselves. As such, a student studying philosophy must use the methodology of philosophy on the philosophy they are learning as they are learning it. Doing philosophy involves asking the right questions, critically examining the work of previous philosophers, truly understanding the works and the reasoning behind the works, and possibly building on the works of previous philosophers by expanding or testing this methodology.

INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY

Introduction to Philosophy: Defining, Studying, Doing Philosophy is Important

Why Do Atheists Need Philosophy? We Need to Reason Well About Life & Society

By AUSTIN CLINE

• Defining and explaining philosophy is no easy task — the very nature of the subject seems to defy description. The problem is that philosophy, in one way or another, ends up touching upon nearly every aspect of human life. Philosophy has something to say when it comes to science, art, religion, politics, medicine, and a host of other topics. This is also why a basic grounding in philosophy can be so important for irreligious atheists. The more you know about philosophy, and even just the basics of philosophy, the more likely you'll be able to reason clearly, consistently, and with more reliable conclusions.
  

• First, any time atheists get involved in debating religion or theism with believers, they end up either touching upon or getting deeply involved with several different branches of philosophy — metaphysics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, philosophy of history, logic, ethics, etc. This is inevitable and anyone who knows more about these subjects, even if it's just the basics, will do a better job at making a case for their position, at understanding what others are saying, and at arriving at a fair, reasonable conclusion.
  

• Second, even if a person never gets involved in any debates, they still need to arrive at some conception about their life, what life means to them, what they should do, how they should behave, etc. Religion typically presents all of this in a neat package that people can just open up and start using; irreligious atheists, however, generally need to work a lot of these things out for themselves. You can't do that if you can't reason clearly and consistently. This involves not just the various branches of philosophy, but also various philosophical schools or systems where gods are unnecessary: Existentialism, Nihilism, Humanism, etc.
  

• Most people and most irreligious atheists manage to get by without any specific or formal study of anything in philosophy, so obviously it isn't absolutely and unquestionably necessary. At least some understanding of philosophy should make it all easier, however, and will definitely open up more options, more possibilities, and thus perhaps make things better in the long run. You don't need to be a philosophy student, but you should familiarize yourself with the basics — and there's nothing more basic than understanding what "philosophy" is in the first place.
  

• Defining Philosophy

• Philosophy comes from the Greek for "love of wisdom," giving us two important starting points: love (or passion) and wisdom (knowledge, understanding). Philosophy sometimes seems to be pursued without passion as if it were a technical subject like engineering or mathematics. Although there is a role for dispassionate research, philosophy must derive from some passion for the ultimate goal: a reliable, accurate understanding ourselves and our world. This is also what atheists should seek.
  

• Why is Philosophy Important

  Why should anyone, including atheists, care about philosophy? Many think of philosophy as an idle, academic pursuit, never amounting to anything of practical value. If you look at the works of ancient Greek philosophers, they were asking the same questions which philosophers ask today. Doesn't this mean that philosophy never gets anywhere and never accomplishes anything? Aren't atheists wasting their time by studying philosophy and philosophical reasoning?
  

• Studying and Doing Philosophy

• The study of philosophy is usually approached in one of two different ways: the systematic or topical method and the historical or biographical method. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and it is often beneficial to avoid focusing on one to the exclusions of the other, at least whenever possible. For irreligious atheists, though, the focus should probably be more on the topical than on the biographical method because that will provide clear overviews of relevant issues.
  

• Philosophy comes from the Greek for "love of wisdom," giving us two important starting points: love (or passion) and wisdom (knowledge, understanding). Philosophy sometimes seems to be pursued without passion as if it were a technical subject like engineering or mathematics. Although there is a role for dispassionate research, philosophy must derive from some passion for the ultimate goal: a reliable, accurate understanding ourselves and our world. This is also what atheists should seek.
  

• Atheists, too, are often accused of trying to strip passion, love, and mystery out of life through relentlessly logical and critical arguments about religion. This perception is understandable, given how atheists can behave, and atheists should keep in mind that even the strongest logical argument doesn't matter unless it's being offered in the service of truth. That, in turn, requires some passion and love for truth. Forgetting this can lead to forgetting the reason why you're discussing these matters at all.
  

• A further complication is how the Greek sophia means more than the English translation "wisdom." For the Greeks, it wasn't just a matter of understanding the nature of life, but also included any exercise of intelligence or curiosity. Thus, any effort to "find out" more about a topic involves the attempt to expand or exercise sophia and thus might be characterized as a philosophical pursuit.
  

• This is something which atheists in general should develop a habit of doing: reasoned, critical inquiry into the claims and ideas around them as part passion for learning the truth and separating true from false ideas. Such "disciplined inquiry" is in fact one way to describe the process of philosophy. Despite the need for passion, that passion needs to be disciplined lest it lead us astray. Too many people, atheists and theists, can be led astray when emotions and passions have too much influence over our evaluation of claims.
  

• Seeing philosophy as a type of inquiry emphasizes that it is about asking questions — questions which, in fact, may never actually get final answers. One of the criticisms which irreligious atheists have about religious theism is how it presumes to offer final, unchanging answers for questions to which we should really say "I don't know." Religious theism also too rarely adapts its answers to new information that comes along, something which irreligious atheists must remember to do.
  

• In his book A Concise Introduction to Philosophy, William H. Halverson offers these defining characteristics of questions which fall within the field of philosophy:

· They do not fall within the competence of any of the sciences.
· It is genuinely difficult to determine what kind of evidence, if any, is relevant to answering them.
· They are logically fundamental.
· They are questions of broad generality, questions whose answers have far-reaching consequences for our understanding ourselves and our world.

• How fundamental and how general does a question have to be to call it "philosophical"? There is no easy answer and philosophers don't agree on how to respond to that. The characteristic of being fundamental is probably more important than that being general, though, because these are the sorts of things which most people usually just take for granted. Too many people take too much for granted, especially in the realms of religion and theism, when they should ideally be asking questions about what they have been taught and what they simply assume to be true. One service which irreligious atheists can provide is to ask the sorts of questions that religious believers don't ask of themselves.
  

• Halverson also argues that philosophy involves two separate but complimentary tasks: critical and constructive. The characteristics described above fall almost entirely within the critical task of philosophy, which involves posing difficult and probing questions about truth claims. This is precisely what irreligious atheists frequently do when it comes to examining the claims of religious theism — but it's not enough.
  Asking such questions is not designed to destroy truth or belief, but to ensure that belief rests upon genuine truth and is genuinely reasonable.

• The purpose is to find truth and avoid error and thus to aid the constructive aspect of philosophy: developing a reliable and productive picture of reality. Religion presumes to offer such a picture, but irreligious atheists have many good reasons for rejecting this. Much of the history of philosophy involves trying to develop systems of understanding which can withstand the hard questions of critical philosophy. Some systems are theistic, but many are atheistic in the sense that no gods and nothing supernatural is taken into account.
  

• The critical and constructive aspects of philosophy are thus not independent, but interdependent. There is little point in critiquing the ideas and proposals of others without having something substantive to offer instead, just as there is little point in offering ideas without being willing to both critique them yourself and having others provide critiques. Irreligious atheists may be justified in critiquing religion and theism, but they shouldn't do so without being able to offer something in their place.
  In the end, the hope of atheistic philosophy is to understand: understand ourselves, our world, our values and the entirety of existence around us. We humans want to understand such things and thus develop religions and philosophies. This means that everyone does at least a little bit of philosophy, even when they have never experienced formal training.
  

• Neither of the above aspects of philosophy is passive. Whatever else might be said about the subject, philosophy is an activity. Philosophy requires our active engagement with the world, with ideas, with concepts, and with our own thoughts. It is what we do because of who and what we are — we are philosophizing creatures, and we will always be engaged in philosophy in some form. The goal for atheists in studying philosophy should be to encourage others to examine themselves and their world in a more systematic and coherent manner, reducing the extent of errors and misunderstandings.
  

• Why should anyone, including atheists, care about philosophy? Many think of philosophy as an idle, academic pursuit, never amounting to anything of practical value. If you look at the works of ancient Greek philosophers, they were asking the same questions which philosophers ask today. Doesn't this mean that philosophy never gets anywhere and never accomplishes anything? Aren't atheists wasting their time by studying philosophy and philosophical reasoning?
  

• Certainly not — philosophy is not simply something for egghead academics in ivory towers. On the contrary, all humans engage in philosophy in one form or another because we are philosophizing creatures. Philosophy is about gaining a better understanding of ourselves and our world — and since that is what humans naturally desire, humans quite readily engage in philosophical speculation and questioning.
  

• What this means is that the study of philosophy is not a useless, dead-end pursuit. It is true that remaining with philosophy does not afford an especially wide range of career options, but skill with philosophy is something which can be readily transferred to a wide variety of fields, not to mention things we do every day. Anything which requires careful thinking, systematic reasoning, and an ability to ask and address difficult questions will benefit from a background in philosophy.
  

• Obviously, this makes philosophy is important for those who desire to learn more about themselves and about life — especially irreligious atheists who cannot simply accept the ready-made "answers" typically provided by theistic religions. As Simon Blackburn stated in an address he delivered at the University of North Carolina: [blockquote shade=yes] People who have cut their teeth on philosophical problems of rationality, knowledge, perception, free will and other minds are well placed to think better about problems of evidence, decision making, responsibility and ethics that life throws up.
  
  
• These are some of the benefits which irreligious atheists, and just about anyone else, can derive from studying philosophy:
  

• Problem Solving Skills: Philosophy is about asking difficult questions and developing answers which can be reasonably and rationally defended against hard, skeptical questioning. Irreligious atheists need to learn how to analyze concepts, definitions and arguments in a way conducive towards developing solutions for particular problems. If an atheist is good at this, they can have greater assurance that their beliefs may be reasonable, consistent and well-founded because they have examined them systematically and carefully.
  

• Communication Skills: A person who excels at communicating in the field of philosophy can also excel at communication in other areas. When debating religion and theism, atheist need to express their ideas clearly and precisely, both in speaking and in writing. Far too many problems in debates about religion and theism can be traced to imprecise terminology, unclear concepts, and other issues that would be overcome if people were better at communicating what they are thinking.
  

• Self-Knowledge: It isn't just a matter of better communication with others that is helped by the study of philosophy — understanding yourself is improved. The very nature of philosophy is such that you get a better picture of what you yourself believe simply through working through those beliefs in a careful and systematic fashion. Why are you an atheist? What do you really think about religion? What do you have to offer in place of religion? These aren't always easy questions to answer, but the more you know about yourself, the easier it will be.
  

• Persuasive Skills: The reason for developing problem solving and communication skills is not simply to gain a better understanding of the world, but also to get others to agree with that understanding. Good persuasive skills are thus important in the field of philosophy because a person needs to defend her own views and to offer insightful critiques of the views of others. It is obvious that irreligious atheists seek to persuade others that religion and theism are irrational, unfounded, and perhaps even dangerous, but how can they accomplish this if they lack the skill for communicating and explaining their positions?
  

• Remember, everyone already has some sort of philosophy and already "does" philosophy when they think about and address issues which are fundamental to questions about life, meaning, society and morality. Thus, the question is not really "Who cares about doing philosophy," but rather "Who cares about doing philosophy well?" Studying philosophy isn't simply about learning how to ask and answer these questions, but about how to do it in a systematic, careful, and reasoned manner — exactly what irreligious atheists say isn't typically done by religious believers when it comes to their own religious beliefs.
  

• Everyone who cares about whether or not their thinking reasonable, well-founded, well-developed and coherent should care about doing this well. Irreligious atheists who are critical of the way believers approach their religion are being at least a little bit hypocritical if they themselves don't approach their own thinking in an appropriately disciplined and reasoned manner. These are qualities which the study of philosophy can bring to a person's questioning and curiosity, and that is why the subject is so important. We may never arrive at any final answers, but in many ways it is the journey which is most important, not the destination.
  

• The study of philosophy is usually approached in one of two different ways: the systematic or topical method and the historical or biographical method. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and it is often beneficial to avoid focusing on one to the exclusions of the other, at least whenever possible. For irreligious atheists, though, the focus should probably be more on the topical than on the biographical method because that will provide clear overviews of relevant issues.
  

• The systematic or topical method is based upon addressing philosophy one question at a time. This means taking on an issue of debate and discussing the ways in which philosophers have offered their views and the various approaches they have utilized. In books which use this method you find sections about God, Morality, Knowledge, Government, etc.
  

• Because atheists tend to find themselves engaged in specific debates about the nature of the mind, the existence of gods, the role of religion in government, etc., this topical method will probably prove most useful most of the time. It probably shouldn't be used exclusively, though, because removing philosophers’ answers from their historical and cultural context causes something to get lost. These writings were not, after all, created in a cultural and intellectual vacuum, or solely in the context of other documents on the same topic.
  

• Sometimes, a philosopher’s ideas are best understood when read along with his or her writings on other issues — and that is where the historical or biographical method proves its strengths. This method explains the history of philosophy in a chronological manner, taking each major philosopher, school or period of philosophy in turn and discussing the questions addressed, answers offered, major influences, successes, failures, etc. In books using this method you find presentations of Ancient, Medieval and Modern philosophy, on British Empiricism and American Pragmatism, and so forth. Although this method can seem dry at times, reviewing the sequence of philosophical thought shows how ideas have developed.
  

• Doing Philosophy
  

• One important aspect of the study of philosophy is that it also involves doing philosophy. You don’t need to know how to paint in order to be an art historian, and you don’t need to be a politician in order to study political science, but you do need to know how to do philosophy in order to properly study philosophy. You need to know how to analyze arguments, how to ask good questions, and how to construct your own sound and valid arguments on some philosophical topic. This is especially important for irreligious atheists who want to be able to critique religion or religious beliefs.
  

• Simply memorizing facts and dates from a book isn’t good enough. Simply pointing out things like violence committed in the name of religion isn't good enough. Philosophy depends not so much on regurgitating facts but on understanding — an understanding of ideas, concepts, relationships, and the reasoning process itself. This, in turn, only comes about through an active engagement in the philosophical study, and can only be demonstrated through the sound use of reason and language.
  

• This engagement, of course, starts with understanding the terms and concepts involved. You cannot answer the question “What is the meaning of life?” if you don’t understand what is meant by “meaning.” You cannot answer the question "Does God exist?" if you don't understand what is meant by "God." This requires a precision of language not normally expected in ordinary conversations (and which may at times seem annoying and pedantic), but it is crucial because ordinary language is so rife with ambiguities and inconsistencies. This is why the field of logic has developed a symbolic language for representing the various terms of arguments.
  

• A further step involves investigating the various ways in which the question can be answered. Some potential answers might seem absurd and some very reasonable, but it is important to try and determine what the various positions may be. Without some assurance that you have at least brought up all of the possibilities, you’ll never feel confident that what you have settled on is the most reasonable conclusion. If you're going to look at "Does God exist?" for example, you need to understand how it might be answered in different ways depending on what one means by "God" and "exist."
  

• After that, it is necessary to weigh the arguments for and against the different positions — this is where much philosophical discussion takes place, in supporting and critiquing different arguments. Whatever you finally decide upon will probably not be “right” in any final sense, but by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the different arguments, you will at least know just how sound your position is and where you need to do further work. Too often, and especially when it comes to debates over religion and theism, people do imagine that they have arrived at final answers with little work done to seriously weigh the various arguments involved.
  

• This is an idealized description of doing philosophy, of course, and it is rare that any one person goes through all of the steps independently and fully. Much of the time, we have to rely upon the work done by colleagues and predecessors; but the more careful and systematic a person is, the closer their work will reflect the above. This means that an irreligious atheist can't be expected to investigate every religious or theistic claim to its utmost, but if they are going to debate any particular claims they should spend at least some time on as many of the steps as possible. Many of the resources on this site are designed to help you go through those steps: defining terms, examining various arguments, weighing those arguments, and reaching some reasonable conclusion based upon the evidence at hand.