A brilliant essay by Prof Dr Sohail Ansari & Adversary Paradigm.

 “We Will Test You In Fear, Hunger Loss of Wealth Life & Fruit But Give Glad Tiding to Patient. Quran 2:155”

Topic should not fall within the ambit

·         A brilliant essay can reveal a great deal, but there are some aspects of reality – among them, the topic it is dealing with – that remain largely outside its ambit.

How would discarding the Adversary Paradigm affect philosophy? Any paradigm in philosophy will restrict the way reasoning is evaluated. I have argued that the Adversary Paradigm not only ignores some forms of good reasoning, but fails to evaluate and even encourages some forms of bad reasoning. However, criticism of the Adversary Paradigm is not enough; we need alternatives. One of the problems with a paradigm that becomes really entrenched is that it is hard to conceive of how the field would operate without it. What other method of evaluating philosophy is there but the Adversary Method? An alternative way of evaluating reasoning, already used in the history of philosophy and history of science, is to consider how the reasoning relates to a larger system of ideas. The questions to be asked are not just “Must the argument as it stands now be accepted as valid?” but also “What are the most plausible premises that would make this argument a good one?” “Why is this argument important?” “How does its form and its conclusion fit in with other beliefs and patterns of reasoning?” For example, one can consider not only whether Descartes’ proofs of the existence of God are valid, but what good reasons there are for proving the existence of God; how Descartes’ concept of God is related to his concept of causation and of matter. One can examine the influence of methodology and instrumentation

 With such an approach relations of ideas that are not deductive can also be evaluated. We can look at how world views relate to different philosophical positions about free will and determinism, about rationality and ethical values, about distinctions claimed between mind and body, self and other, order and chaos. A second way of treating systems of ideas involves a greater shift from the Adversary Paradigm. It may even require a shift in our concept of reasoning for it to be accepted. It is that experience may be a necessary element in certain reasoning processes. While many philosophers recognize that different factual beliefs, and hence basic premises, may arise from different experiences, it is believed that philosophical discussions ought to proceed as if experience plays no essential role in the philosophical positions one holds. Experience may be necessary to resolve factual disputes but aside from errors about the facts, any differences in experience that might account for differences in philosophical beliefs are ignored or denied. It is thought that all genuine philosophical differences can be resolved through language. This belief supports the Adversary Paradigm, for adversarial arguments could be pointless if it was experience rather than argument that determined philosophical beliefs. Yet might it not be possible, for example, that belief in a supreme deity is correlated with perceived ability to control one’s future? When there is little control, when one is largely powerless to organize one’s environment, then belief in a deity helps one to understand, to be motivated to go on, to keep in good spirits. When one feels effective in coping with the world, then belief in a supreme being does not contribute to a satisfactory outlook. Belief in a deity would benefit, would be rational for the very young, the very old, the poor and the helpless. But for others, with the experience of being able to control their own lives and surroundings, the difference in experience would give rise to a different belief. I am not arguing for this account, but suggesting it as an illustration for how different experiences could determine different philosophical positions which are not resolvable by argument. A similar case might be made for differences in the free will/determinism issue. These alternatives to the Adversary Paradigm may be objected to by philosophers who are under the delusion that philosophy is different from science, that unlike science, its evaluation procedures are exact and value-free. But for those who accept that what philosophers have said about science (that scientific evaluation is not free from uncertainty and values, because it is dependent on paradigms) is also true of philosophy, other means of evaluation besides the Adversary Method will not be so objectionable. I have been criticizing the use of the Adversary Method as a paradigm. And I think one of the best ways to reduce its paradigm status is to point out that it is a paradigm, that there are other ways of evaluating, reasoning about and discussing philosophy.

جو شخص میرے اور جماعت اسلامی کے اس کام کو میرا اور جماعت کا کوئی ذاتی ’کاروبار‘ سمجھتا ہو اور اس میں بطورِ احسان ہاتھ بٹانے آرہا ہو تو وہ سخت گناہ گار ہے۔کیوں کہ دین کے نام سے کاروبارکرنا اور اس کاروبار میں حصہ لینا وہ بدترین تجارت ہے، جس سے زیادہ خسارے کا سودا شاید ہی کوئی ہو۔ کسی نے اگرآج تک یہ سمجھتے ہوئے ہماری تائید کی ہے، تو اب اسے توبہ کرنی چاہیے اور فوراً اس تائید سے دست کش ہوجانا چاہیے۔
لیکن، اگر کوئی ہمارے اس کام کو خالصتاً للہ دین کا کام سمجھ کر ہماری تائید کرنے آتا ہے تو اس کے اور ہمارے درمیان جو معاملہ بھی ہوگا، خالص حق پرستی کی بنیاد پر ہوگا۔ نہ ہم اس سے کوئی مطالبہ حق کے خلاف کرسکتے ہیں اور نہ وہ ہم سے خلافِ حق کوئی مطالبہ کرسکتا ہے۔
کسی [فرد] کے پاس اگر اس مطالبے کے لیے کوئی دلیل ہو کہ: ’’دُنیا میں اور جو بھی دینی تصوّرات اور اصولوں کے خلاف کوئی کام کرے اس کی تو خبر لے ڈالو، مگر ہمارے حضرتوں میں سے کوئی یہ کام کرے تو اس پر دم نہ مارو‘‘، تو وہ براہِ کرم اپنی دلیل پیش کرے۔ ہم بھی غور کریں گے کہ قرآن، حدیث یا سلف صالحین کے اسوے میں اس دلیل کا کوئی مقام ہے یا نہیں۔
اور اگر ایسی کوئی دلیل اس [فرد] کے پاس نہیں ہے تو ہم صاف کہتے ہیں کہ اس کا یہ مطالبہ ماننے کے لیے ہم تیار نہیں ہیں۔ اس طرح کی شرطیں لے کر جو لوگ خدا کا کام کرنے کے لیے ہمارے ساتھ آئیں، وہ ہمارے لیے سبب ِ قوت نہیں بلکہ سراسر سبب ِ ضعف ہیں۔ ایسے لوگ دُنیا میں کبھی حق قائم نہیں کرسکتے۔ وہ سب بیک وقت ہماری تائید سے دست کش ہوجائیں تو ہم اللہ کا شکر کریں گے۔([سیّدابوالاعلیٰ مودودی] ترجمان القرآن، جلد۵۰، عدد۴، ذوالحجہ ۱۳۷۷ھ/ اگست۱۹۵۸ء، ص۵۲-۵۳)