Diagnosis of Muslims Decline
English Essay on “Diagnosis of Muslims Decline”
There were times when Islamic empire was expanding from the eastern coast of India to the western coast of Europe. If we imagine today that such empire existed in the golden pages of history we first think “how?” We can see the boundaries of Islamic countries covering large portion of the world map but they are not one as they were two hundred years ago. They are now struggling for their independent survival but in their individual capacity. The question is why they are not united, what has rendered them to this state of disintegration, why they are not at the top of their glory as they were in their past? For all these questions only one answer could be have, that is, the negligence of the importance of time, as a philosopher of time could surmise, on the part of Muslims. For them time was a mere tool of prolonging their stay on earth and this at this time is prolonging the agony of their new generations about their future state in future.
The rapid decline of the Muslims after their phenomenal rise is startling. It was not merely decline, a phenomena familiar in history, but degeneration and degradation which call for a probing examination of the causes which brought them about. The pathology of peoples no less than individuals needs an in-depth study, particularly ii the present age when the demands of recovery and proceeding on progressive lines are becoming more and more urgent. The main disregard of the Pen and the Sword, the twin vital factors which have been stressed again and again in, the Quran so that the Muslims should never loose sight of them; their whole existence and survival in a world of contending forces depends upon them.
Another very important cause of their downfall is their failure to understand the value of time, an integral and invulnerable part of their personality, society and culture. The time factor is one of the kingpins of the Muslim belief, religious and action systems. Both their culture and faith are encompassed by tempo-centric implications. Time is not a simple process of measurement. It is not something devoid of meaning, a mere blank. It is full of meaning, values and norms in all its phases.educationsight.blogspot.com Hence it should not be frittered away in frivolous activities. In Islam it is integrated with its germinal and compositional parts, namely temprology, temprography and temprosophy.
Another striking characteristic of our sense world is that it endures. It continues to exist as long as we perceive it. We feel difficulty in realising that to know objects as enduring we must reconstruct them as past. The present objects and their past are thus connected by us in an order of succession. Time is the principle of connection according to which the ‘self’ links together the successive events of its experience. The past comes into being for us as we produce in our own private psychic laboratory an experience which we locate in a present no longer existing. There is no past except for an intelligence, and there is no intelligence apart from memory.
But if the events are successive, are they not already in time? An explanation is not far to seek. Succession, howsoever it may originate, is known to us as succession only through our linking the events together in a temporal order, but the time in our experience must be distinguished from succession in the control exercised upon LS. The time series as we apprehend it is a necessary implication o. activity in the course of control, for we cannot conceive of activity without before and after. Time seems independent of us because it expresses the continuity of the activity by which we are stimulated.
What we have before us, then, as we apprehend the objects about us, is not merely their immediate presence but more or less definite reconstruction of their past. The past and present are mutually exclusive. Hence we think of the one as preceding the other. The members of the succession are in this way apprehended as if they were spread out in a quasi-space extending from the present into the past and presumably into the future. It is this expanse of the past, present and future that we call objective time. It closely resembles the space idea of coexistent objects as held together in a common space, and successive objects are held together in common time.
The analogy between time and space is closer than may first appear. IL is quite impossible to have any conception of time that does not include somewhat the past and future, and when these are grasped together in thought, the result is psychologically a space image. Every present thus includes a bit of what was a bit of what will be. This constitutes an irresolvable puzzle so long as we think of time as existing apart from the knowing mind. In fact, this necessity of making the present concrete by borrowing from the past and the future is clear evidence that time is a construct by the thinker and has no other existence.
The scientist, in his reconstruction of the past has been forced by ever-accumulating data to push the beginning back farther and farther into the dim unknown. The time-space is relative to the spread of events contained in it.
The intellectual is inclined to regard the temporal order as an intellectual grasp of present, past and future events as Co. existence. This view does away with the profound mystery of cosmic change, and this makes the world intellectually construable. The distinction between past and present appears as one of relative definiteness and clearness. There is a tang and vividness in the present that the past lacks because we are limited in our power to reproduce the past. But we might picture to ourselves an intelligence infinite in its ability to apprehend details of existence. For such as intelligence the past, present and future might seem to be one eternal now. This may be an inspiring picture but it does not explain the world we know, which is a changing world. The past is that which has ceased to be in our experience. The, present is the time when we are active and doing something. The future is the ideal extension of the time-form to cover what we expect to do. It is not a matter of limited intellectual grasp that makes the division of time into past, present and future significant to us. The time order has to do more with our actual volitional life than with intellection. In fact, as soon as we try to comprehend time as an idea, we distort it, for we make the fact of succession illusory.
Yet for certain scientific purposes this distortion is not only permissible but inevit.ble. When science deals with some phase of the evolutionary process, it passes back and forth over the temporal succession and studies it as if the whole course were present for inspection. Results are thus obtained which encourage the investigator to look upon the past as somehow existing. How can the past influence the present if it does not exist? Hence we have one of those questions which may receive an answer serviceable to experimental science yet riot satisfying to critical thought. When we begin to reflect, we recognise that ideational content is static and that as changeless, it is not capable of expressing the real world of which change is a fundamental characteristic. If we start with experience, we must start with change, for we heave world that ceaselessly passes into forms of existence to which we must continuously adjust ourselves. The change is no less change that unchanging concepts can express to some extent its nature. The concepts which make up our knowledge of the outside world express not the individual events as the concrete elements in change but generalized notions of events. Thus the scientist by his methods of analysis, comparison and generalization is able to ignore the novelty in the changing process and extracts the time-transcending features of many events that constitute an order of change. He gets the relatively timeless out of the time-flow of events. The extraction of the timele.ss from the changing world proves to be valid, that is, it helps us in anticipating future events and contriving to alter the course of nature. So effective is the application of concepts of nature that the temptation is strong to look upon the reality and incessant change as appearance.
There is tendency to view time and space objectively and to think of them as affecting events. It seems to have a corrosive effect upon objects by the gnawing tooth of time. It comes to have the essential characteristics of an independent existence. It is a form of energy. For this conception of time the same reasons can be given as for the similar conception of space. It is apparently involved in a realistic view of nature. If enduring things have an independent reality, then the time they occupy must also be so. Calculations in which time is a factor proceeds as if time were energy, making real difference. This comes about because things in time are continuously changing. We find it convenient to put the cause in time itself. The convenience justifies the shift so long as our interest does not go beyond scientific use of the time units. Time as energy thus becomes a thing able to interact with other things. It loses its nature as different from the things contained in it.
But when we time, as the mind unites events in an order of succession, we start on a course of thought away from the idea of time as a form of energy. We find that time simply exhibits the successive events as connected in an order; further than that it in no way affects them. Perceptually we have many temporal successions and by a process of abstraction can think of time apart from the successive events. Thus originates the common statement that time is the abstract form of succession, a characterization appropriate enough if the empty form is recognized as an abstraction and not a non-mental entity. Empty time has no characteristics i itself that could distinguish one portion of time from another. Qualitative differences belong to events in time. If time were regarded as independent of the participant, this contrast of time as energy and time as empty and passive would amount to a contradiction, but the view that time has its source in the mind enables us to utilise both conceptions though in different context.
Concerned as we are at the present with the question as to what the percipient contributes in the way of constructive principles in acquiring his objective world, we may say that time is his grasp of events in an order of succession. It simply states that time factor does matter when one comes to know importance of relativity of time within the boundaries already defined by the succession of events during past and shapes his future theory with the help of his experiences within his grasp of time.