I have a favourite definition for knowledge. It allows one to know the difference between wrong and right, and also enables one to make choices about truth matters. But, if we have lots of information about a subject but cannot apply it to solve real problems, then we do not have real knowledge; just information or academic knowledge about the subject matter.
Such lack of knowledge is ‘ignorance’. The root word for knowledge in Greek is ‘ gnosis .’ The absence of knowledge is ignosis or, in English, it is ‘ignorance’. Recently I had to ascribe to a friend his misinformation about the ‘Allah’ word as ‘ignorance’. Both from the etymology of the root word, or from the biblical point of view, his information about the ‘Allah’ word was ‘ ignosis .’ We agreed to disagree agreeably about that subject.
More ignorance than knowledge
Recently, there was a fatwa (which is essentially only an opinion) which advised Muslims not to use the term ‘RIP’ when expressing grief to the late Karpal family, or in wishing the man himself farewell and good wishes. These issues caused a number of Muslims and groups to make their own assessments.
Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) chairperson and director Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa (left) said: “Islam is supposed to be a religion of mercy but we are portraying it as a religion full of hatred and animosity. Not only are we harsh in dealing with others in daily life but even the dead are not spared our odium and repugnance.
“We should have found ourselves drawn to grief instead with the loss of those who have done seminal things that changed the ways the country works. Even though the person might be our arch political enemy, we still have to respect his principles in life and his ardent determination.”…
Ahmad Farouk continued: “When we say ‘rest in peace’, the main intention is to show respect to the deceased. In the time of the Prophet, he stood up to honour a procession carrying a dead Jewish man’s body. That is what Islam is all about, respecting others, dead or alive.
“How God will judge others and us is beyond our understanding. Would he place a non-Muslim who spent his life fighting to uphold justice and against tyranny in Heaven or a so-called Muslim but who had spent his life trampling on humans’ dignity and tormenting the lives of others in Hell; it is up to His discretion. It is not for us to decide on such a matter.”
Ahmad Farouk aptly concluded: “At times of grief, these phrases are just the expressions of sympathy and empathy from one caring Malaysian to another.\” (Source: www.theantdaily.com)
Even worse, the president of another group, the Muslim Lawyers Association or PPMM, spoke as reported below:
PPMM president Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar said an “old non-fatwa opinion” was used to falsely picture the council as issuing such an edict hours after the death of Karpal Singh, which created scorn against the council specifically and Muslims in general in the social media.
To me, what becomes obvious, it is not the scholars or those who are informed that are doing this but really some ignorant people who choose to express their ‘limited knowledge on the subject’ and are fuelled by equally ignorant and incompetent media partners who report such wrong or false opinions. Even President Barack Obama described such bigotry in the US as ‘ignorance!’
Are we an informated society?
Shousana Zouboff, who was Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School, in her 1988 book, In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, developed three principles worth understanding about our so-called ‘smart world’.
Her research demonstrated the tripartite nature of the relationship between information technology and work:
1) Technology is not neutral, but embodies intrinsic characteristics that enable new human experiences and foreclose others,
2) Within these new “horizons of the possible” individuals and groups construct meaning and make choices, further shaping the situation, and
3) The interplay of intrinsic qualities and human choices is further shaped by social, political, and economic interests that inscribe the situation with their own intended and unintended opportunities and limitations.
In the context of her research about the implications of information technology she stated three laws:
1. Everything that can be automated will be automated.
2. Everything that can be informated will be informated.
3. Every digital application that can be used for surveillance and control will be used for surveillance and control.
In my conclusion about the above argument applied to Malaysia, allow me to raise a question for Malaysians to consider. What kind and quality of an ‘informated society’ do we want to be? Can we simply afford ‘fear mongers’ who misinterpret every ethnic and religious difference to develop their pet theologies which are not there even in the original teachings?
Mine is not simply a rhetorical question because it is obvious from the case of the late Karpal, who was a hero to simple and ordinary Malaysians, but one whose name has been smeared ‘in the name of God’.
A values-based knowledge-intensive vision of society
Dr Mahathir Mohamad called it Bangsa Malaysia and PM Najib calls it 1Malaysia but both concepts are currently flawed because some say they are Malays first, not Malaysians first.
The other concept has almost zero grounding with people because they cannot relate to the concept which only defines the one-ness at the level of the nation-state, but does not define clearly the relational role of each Malaysian within the requisite context but allows us to highlight ‘race and religious differences’ to be deployed for ‘selfie advantage’.
I therefore promote a new and different ideal: that of 1Bangsa of Malaysians premised upon a values-based knowledge and civil society. May the Good Lord grant us that vision.