FOR centuries, ‘knowledge’ (‘ilm), sacred or profane, was often viewed as ‘facts’. However, knowledge is constructed by humans. And it has to be a human process (maybe aided by the Divine), which by necessity means changed perceptions. This means that as humans are imperfect, their productions by nature too are imperfect.

Knowledge has to be fluid, comprising opinions, suggestions, perceptions, interpretations and reinterpretations. Knowledge, as we know, is a collection of writers’ perspectives, orientations, interests, and what they prefer to select and showcase, based on the sources available to them.

The term ‘reconstruction’ might remind many of Allama Iqbal’s lectures on the theme. Here I focus on a slightly different theme — ie on knowledge per se.

Uncountable commentaries, translations of the Quran and hadith, books on history, books on fiqh and fatwas show that there may be multiple views of the same statement or ‘fact’. There may be many kinds of rulings on a particular case, legal or moral. Every writer tries to give an ‘accurate’ interpretation of an event or statement. But the same ‘accurate’ view may be a very false statement for another person viewing the same from another perspective (Quran 5:13). Much of the Quran and hadith applied out of context has similar issues.

Knowledge can be deliberately distorted.

Not only this, knowledge may often be deliberately distorted to suit certain interests. Some ‘knowledge’ would be produced, or fatwas given, at the desire of, for example, kings or wazirs to highlight their positions and revile that of their enemies. Many historians often would do the same. Many nation states also distort histories to suit their political agendas and ideologies. In modern times, the media — electronic, print or social — promotes or downgrades a particular brand or personality or political party for many motives — altruistic or ulterior. Knowledge consumers, very generally, can hardly see these intricacies or motives behind the so-called ‘knowledge’.

Sects or sectarianism could be better understood through these perspectives, and not through polemical books written against each other. Rather than understanding the multiplicity of interpretations as historical fact, many heresiographies interpreted them as ‘heresies’ and dubbed them as takfir. Today, many evangelicals do the same thing: consider their interpretation as the ‘truth’ and others’ as bid’a (innovation).

The phenomenon of exclusiveness for a particular denomination gets strengthened precisely because of the approach adopted towards so-called sectarian knowledge. Hardened positions are presented not as ideas to be explored, but something to be fought for. Some, however, go beyond these positions, and look at ideas objectively and try to see the underlying assumptions and analyse them as objectively as possible to reach unbiased conclusions. They look at others’ ideas more sympathetically and see what evidence they present.

The good news is that many modern writers have enlightened us about the sociology of knowledge as being the result of construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of certain perspectives, and how they undergo a process depending on, for example, the context, the times, motives and the producers of knowledge.

Moreover, many institutions of higher learning have facilitated young minds to study different communities and their histories and cultures. In addition, the easy access to the literature of different communities and faith traditions has made it possible to study them more objectively, applying modern re­search disciplines such as an­­thropology, sociology, psychology and archaeology, changing the way we study faith communities or cultures.

Knowledge — human or divine — is to be approached through a process of hermeneutic inquiry, interpreting and reinterpreting the assertions, asking questions, rather than adopting an uncritical approach. It is always a work in progress. We all grow out of our taken-for-granted ideas if and only if we reflect, ponder and contemplate.

Reflection and critical thinking help us free ourselves from Platonic caves, watching our sectarian reflections on our walls of historic consciousness, generated by real actors on the stage of history and culture. We need to get out of the time-bound interpretations of our cocooned worlds, and look at our history, beliefs, practices as ever-moving, building and rebuilding perspectives. We need to bring forward from the storehouse of history ideas, ideals, models and perspectives that can help build bridges, live together as communities of multiple interpretations as the Quran guides us, thriving in the global village with inclusive, pluralistic and cosmopolitan outlooks.

The writer is an educationist with an interest in the study of religion and philosophy.

Published in Dawn, July 22nd, 2022