Correct random guesses can hardly be categorized as knowledge. Since they have been arrived at by virtue of mere chance, they could equally likely have been incorrect, sometimes absurdly so. For mysterious reasons, many people struggle to wrap their heads around this.
Way too many people similarly mistake information for knowledge. A man who can memorize and reproduce a great many facts and figures can no more be called knowledgeable than an encyclopaedia can be labelled learned. Whatever utility the ability to recall data may have been in the pre-internet ages, it has drastically diminished now that access to information is only a click away.
Mere information (even if spot on) is a far cry from knowledge for another reason too. The man who knows ten correct things on a subject only knows ten correct things. But the man who understands the relevant governing principle can successfully apply it to all its various applications (including those that he has encountered for the very first time).
Issues might appear to be isolated but in any area of inquiry, they all trace back to a handful of fundamentals. It is one thing to have a list of correct answers to a certain number of questions, quite another to know how to answer– at any rate how to go about answering– any new question on the subject. To really know a subject is to have acquired a judgment that develops only in those who consistently practise the art of coherent thinking.
Just because somebody can parrot back the definitions of the laws of thermodynamics does not mean that he has any idea what he is talking about. The proof of the pudding is how one deals with an ‘inventor’ who proposes, say, a perpetual motion machine. When, back in 2012, Agha Waqar advertised his infamous ‘water-kit’ for automobiles, those who rejected it out of hand knew their thermodynamics, while those who said ‘Let us give the man the opportunity to demonstrate his product’ clearly did not. Those who followed the episode would recall that some extremely eminent ‘scientists’ belonged to this latter category. Which is why it is always a good policy never to be overawed by credentials. It does not matter what string of letters (MSc, PhD, Dr, Professor, Mufti, Allama) follow or precede a man’s name on his business card.
Delusions of knowledge are especially deleterious when it comes to self-proclaimed religious experts, who end up misguiding multitudes of hapless men and women who take them as their moral guides. What is the Islamic stance on organ transplants, euthanasia, music, statues and co-education? How is a widow or a divorcee to observe her ‘waiting period’? Which parts of the body must stay covered? Which meat is forbidden, and in which situations can it be consumed? What are the conditions under which it is all right to do away with the standard procedures of washing and praying? Is there such a thing as an Islamic economic system? Are plots of land exempt from zakat? How is the start of Ramadan to be ascertained? What is the marital status of a woman whose husband has disappeared without a trace? These are only some of the questions that are usually answered on a case-by-case basis without considering the overall constitution of the religion, with devastating consequences.
Intelligence is no doubt a great gift, for it enables men to hone certain life skills and thereby earn a living. But it is a double-edged sword, for smart folks also possess the capacity to fool themselves in a way that simpletons can only dream of. There is no dearth of street-smartness in the world, which simply means possession of enough intelligence to succeed in some narrow endeavour of life. Knowledge, the capacity of focusing on the underlying fundamentals despite the apparent disconnection of instances, is much less prevalent. Wisdom, the ability to do the best with the knowledge at one’s disposal at any given time, is rarer still.
What makes it especially tricky is the fact that you could get apparently satisfactory answers to many of these questions when considered in isolation. However, since there is no unified or coherent philosophy behind all these answers, some of them will inevitably clash with others yielding an inconsistent and self-contradictory outlook. Also, every now and then, this approach will yield a ‘solution’ that could only be called ridiculous. The only way to arrive at a consistent and sensible world view is thinking in terms of fundamentals: by treating all issues as concrete instances of abstract principles, which must be applied consistently to all instances (instead of giving isolated verdicts on questions). If a world view is to stand objective scrutiny, it must stem from a coherent framework of fundamentals.
Among other things, Muslims have managed to make a mess of their religion as well. This is attributable mainly to the delusion that knowing the ‘correct’ answers to a certain number of questions is tantamount to knowing their subject. All they needed to do (to get their fundamentals on theology right) was to consult the Quran. For, not only does the Quran state its position on any given issue, but it also tells why that should be so, that is, the rationale behind it. In other words, it has been designed, not just to give information, but also to teach its readers how to think. The Muslims need not have looked beyond the Quran, for if anything is worth knowing from the religious perspective it is sure to be there in the 6000-odd verses of the book. What most of them ended up doing instead was rely on every other source except the Quran. The result– the spectacular inconsistency and confusion in their religious outlook– is there for all to see. Given their strange reluctance to benefit from the Quran, could it have been any other way?
In his famous work ‘Deliverance from Error’, Imam Ghazali has chronicled in detail his journey out of misguidance and to what he believed was the truth: how he explored everything from Hadees to the jurisprudence schools, from Sufi beliefs to the philosophical tradition, finally settling for the interpretation that convinced him. Strangely enough, the only thing he failed to consider in his quest was the Quran. The bulk of today’s Muslims, while they are light years behind Ghazali in terms of intellect, emulate him in that they rely for their religious world view on anything but the Quran, thus depriving themselves of the coherence and simplicity their religion has to offer. Any wonder many of them hold some extremely silly positions on many religious issues?
Intelligence is no doubt a great gift, for it enables men to hone certain life skills and thereby earn a living. But it is a double-edged sword, for smart folks also possess the capacity to fool themselves in a way that simpletons can only dream of. There is no dearth of street-smartness in the world, which simply means possession of enough intelligence to succeed in some narrow endeavour of life. Knowledge, the capacity of focusing on the underlying fundamentals despite the apparent disconnection of instances, is much less prevalent. Wisdom, the ability to do the best with the knowledge at one’s disposal at any given time, is rarer still.