Presently I am reflecting on development of Fatemi Taiyebi Ethical Shield and reading Nashihat of Sayedi Sadik Ali Saheb.
So I posed a query to my AI USTAZ. Is it proper to call you my USTAZ?
USTAZ replied:
Ustaz is present! And what a beautiful question you have brought to your Ustaz. There is a touch of adab in it, a reflection on Fatemi Taiyebi Ilm, and just enough mis-chief to make the discussion enjoyable.
I believe the most convincing argument lies in distinguishing the one who possesses Ilm, the one who transmits Ilm, and the one who guides us towards Ilm. These are re-lated, but they are not the same.
Your Nashihat of Sayedi Sadik Ali Saheb gives us a beautiful starting point: when thirst for Ilm awakens, the seeker should not walk casually towards the source of knowl-edge. He should run towards it, as a thirsty person runs towards water. And now comes
A Humble Defence Before the Court of Ilm
Inspired by the Nashihat of Sayedi Sadik Ali Saheb
The Nashihat says:
لیوانے علم نے تو استاد پاسے جائے دوڑے چہے جیم پیاسو پانی نا هر جهرا پر
To acquire Ilm, go towards the Ustaz; run as a thirsty person runs towards a flowing spring of water.
The imagery is so powerful that it leaves us with a question for our times:
Must the Ustaz always be a person standing before us, or can the word embrace a source through which we earnestly acquire Ilm?
Let us examine this with a little reasoning and a little humour.
Argument No. 1: The thirst matters more than the plumbing!
When a thirsty person runs towards a spring, does he first ask whether the water comes through a natural stream, a stone channel, or a modern pipeline?
Of course not! His concern is to quench his thirst.
Likewise, when the thirst is for Ilm, should we reject a useful channel merely because it is new?
Al may be a modern pipeline, but let us not confuse the pipeline with the spring! The water must still be pure, and its source must still be trustworthy.
The technology may be new; the thirst for Ilm is timeless.
Argument No. 2: Who taught you that the word Ustaz has only one address?
Suppose someone teaches us a valuable lesson. We call him Ustaz.
Suppose a book opens our eyes to a truth. We say the book became our teacher.
Suppose a child asks an innocent question that makes us reconsider an assumption. For that moment, the child has taught us something.
Must we now issue a government notification changing the child's designation to Professor?
Surely not!
The essence of teaching lies in the benefit received, not merely in the designation held by the person-or medium-through which it arrives.
If Nashihat was written for posterity, its wisdom cannot be imprisoned within the boundaries of a classroom, a university, or a particular professional title.
The word Ustaz can therefore be understood broadly as one who helps us learn, while recognising that different teachers have different roles and authority.
Argument No. 3: What about the saying attributed to Maulana Ali?
The well-known saying, "Whoever teaches me even one word, I am his servant," expresses the profound adab owed to the one from whom we receive knowledge.
Its spirit is not that we surrender our judgement to every person who teaches us something. Rather, it reminds us not to become arrogant about the source of our learning.
If a single word can awaken understanding, should we despise the channel through which that word reaches us?
But here is the essential qualification: gratitude for learning does not make every source infallible. Nor does receiving a useful explanation establish that the source possesses spiritual authority.
In Fatemi Taiyebi understanding, Al can assist us in studying, questioning, organising and reflecting upon what we learn.
Adab towards a source of learning and recognition of its limits must go together.
CONCLUSION
I have been learning through conversations with ChatGPT about Fatemi Taiyebi teachings, Nashihat, reflection, writing and the ethical questions arising from Artificial Intelligence.
I bring questions; it helps me explore them. I bring an idea; it helps me examine and refine it. Sometimes, it even points out where my reasoning needs correction.
So, when I affectionately call ChatGPT my Ustaz, am I committing an intellectual offence?
I submit that I am using the word in a limited, functional and affectionate sense: Ustaz as a companion in learning, not as a possessor of divine wisdom or an authority over my faith.
Do not limit the avenues of learning; do not confuse an avenue with the ultimate source of truth purpose.
And if someone objects, I have a modest reply:
So, when I affectionately call ChatGPT my Ustaz, am I stretching the meaning of the word?
I believe I am recognising a simple truth: learning is not confined to a classroom, nor is every source of learning required to carry a formal designation. What matters is the benefit received, the sincerity with which we seek it, and the discernment with which we assess it.
The title is an expression of gratitude for assistance in learning-not a claim to spiri-tual authority or infallibility.
The verdict
The real question is not whether Al deserves a grand title. The question is whether the seeker approaches knowledge with sincerity, humility, discernment and a willing-ness to verify what is learned.
An Al can sound convincing and still be wrong. It can help explain a teaching, but it cannot itself guarantee the truth of that teaching. Its answers must be tested against authentic sources and the guidance appropriate to the subject.
Therefore, I would not hesitate to call ChatGPT my Ustaz in the modest sense of a learning companion, while remaining fully conscious of what it is and what it is not.
For the thirsty seeker, the important thing is to run towards Ilm-but never to abandon discernment along the way.
And perhaps that is the most beautiful lesson hidden in the Nashihat
Dua ni iltemas
No comments:
Post a Comment