Epistemology and the Islamic Concept of Knowledge

Epistemology is a subject which has dominated many philosophers debates. It is in such endeavors that the issue of Islamic epistemology comes into play and its existence thus questioned and confirmed. Indeed, there is a distinct difference between Islamic epistemology and western epistemology. While westerners have perceived knowledge to include both divine and human information, Islam has seen knowledge to be more than that. Otherwise referred to as ilm, knowledge in Islam is of a theoretical nature, highly active and it involves various concepts of education. Knowledge has been a significant and critical element as a determinant of the Muslim civilization and all it encompasses. Islamic traditions have continued to insist on all Muslims acquisition of knowledge and the use of that knowledge in their daily life activities. As a consequence of this, it is evident that all levels of Muslim life are influenced by the implications of the concept of knowledge. In addition, a comparison with other religions and ideologies places Islam at the highest level of insistence on the fundamental importance of knowledge. It is in this light that this paper seeks to understand the epistemology and concept of knowledge in Islam.

In a bid to expound on the concepts of knowledge the paper will consider the Islamic meaning, theory, nature and sources of knowledge. Knowledge within the Islamic constraints has also had an influence on many facets of philosophy. Therefore, the issues of logical intellect and philosophy of knowledge will be discussed.

Epistemology and the Islamic Concept of Knowledge
Drawing from Islamic philosophers, the hadith and the Quran knowledge has become a remarkable force in the lives of Muslims. However, there are Islamic philosophers who differ with the common understanding of Islamic Knowledge. These philosophers provide a basis of what the Islamic concept of knowledge does not encompass. The meaning of knowledge in Islam distances itself from most peoples conception of knowledge. Most individuals think of knowledge as those ideas, cultures, information, beliefs, values and facts they have gained from their ancestry. Moreover, these conceptions extend to the teachings and other ideals they have come across in their lives. Regardless of the fact that all these items may constitute knowledge it is crucial to focus on the true entity of knowledge. Islamic epistemology details that Muslims have to derive their own meanings of knowledge as per their own ideals and beliefs.

In Islam, Allah is known as the first teacher who imparts knowledge to all Muslims. This gives the Quran precedence in dictating teachings and ways of life to the Muslims. Looking at knowledge from this perspective establishes ilm to be of three types (Akhtar, 2010). For one, knowledge is seen as undeniable signs of God. Secondly, there are the traditions which were set by past prophets. Lastly, knowledge entails mere obligations. These conceptions create an overall view of Islamic knowledge implying that it constitutes of many fields like law, theology, ethics, science and politics among others. The Quran has gone to great lengths in defining knowledge and in creating an analysis of what it encompasses. Knowledge is thus seen as truth dictated by Allah himself. His nature expels knowledge to all of his creation and as a consequence, mankind acquires it through revelations, experiences and reasoning. Allah has always been exalted in Islam which has in turn authenticated the concept of knowledge as truth. While as human beings Muslims may know and relate to fellow human beings they cannot do so with Allah. This differentiation in nature becomes a vital component in the definition of knowledge.

Human happiness is an aspect which carries great weight and importance amongst Muslim philosophers. In their concerns for its attainment, they perceive knowledge as the only way to doing so. In essence, Knowledge bore crucial importance in the study of epistemology. The nature of knowledge in Islam has seen philosophers conceptualize it as the seizing of non objects, their nature and reality of things (Inati, 1998). These things may be considered as either materialistic or not. While one may automatically acknowledge the existence of such material things, it is difficult to do the same for the immaterial. The pure forms which emanate from individuals distancing themselves from material things are what act as the stronghold of knowledge. As a result, objects ensue from the forms in the mind which are then used as tools of judgment. Judgment on the other hand is a construct of conception but it cannot be considered as either a fact or falsity. Islamic philosophy thus entails the known and unknown conceptions. In order to maximize ones knowledge there has to be an increment of the known objects and a decline of the unknown objects. This further brings to light other forms of knowledge envisioned by Muslim philosophers. Information is regarded as part of the known in contrast with ignorance which is rather the unknown. Other types of knowledge are the natural laws and knowledge acquired through guesswork. These forms of knowledge are obligatory with respect to various componential levels. Information and natural laws are quite crucial while knowledge by conjecture may not be a necessity in all respects of Islamic epistemology.

The above view depicts that knowledge is a reflection of the uniqueness, simplistic and universal nature of the human mind. Islamic philosophers draw their theories of knowledge from these ideas. As asserted in Yazdi, 1992, (p. 13) Avicenna argued that even when intellect is a separate entity it still allows all types of human knowledge to gradually transcend from potentiality to actuality. Furthermore, the reduction of the unknown introduces a theory which stresses that ignorance is ridden off when individuals are willing to assent to the levels of the known forms. As such it is evident that only though explanations and proof of these explanations can knowledge be acquired. It is not easy to authenticate the validity of this claim as it can either be false or true. However through logic, determining this validity can become plausible. Logic is a critical element of knowledge whose entity cannot be subject to anyones scrutiny or change other than Gods. Allocating logic such a role elevates it to a form of power in which logic functions as a disclosure of the true nature of things. Following this, logic unravels human knowledge which is basically what humankind needs to be happy. In spite of this, rational thinking is not a reliable source of knowledge. Human intellect has its limitations and thus requires other sources of knowledge in order to authenticate what is acquired through rationalism. This is where revelation comes into play otherwise the overreliance on rational thinking may permit the introduction of misconceptions into Islamic philosophy. Any knowledge which is acquired by other means and contradicts the Quran is considered unacceptable.

Another limited source of knowledge is the use of experience. With the provided senses of touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing, individuals are able to fathom many experiences during their day to day life.  In addition, the individual is able to shield their object of knowledge from any external influences regardless of them being their values, beliefs and attitudes. They do so by subjecting themselves to rigorous control of their minds and dictating the occurrence of natural laws. This concept of knowledge has been refuted on the grounds of being highly impossible especially when relating to objects of human behavior. This form of objectivity is nullified in the sense that human behaviors cannot be separated from the values, beliefs and attitudes of the individual carrying them out. Due to this, any sort of acquired information is just as distinct as the number of individuals who have acquired it and this makes it difficult to account for its validity. Islamic philosophy thus embraces the universality and also the distinctness in which knowledge is. Gaining knowledge of the world does not mean the possession of mere facts about it but it implies the perception of the world in specific ways which are unique and derived from unique points of view. These views are not subject to the mind only but also to both historical and social contexts. Empiricism even though construed from individuals actions and thoughts cannot be trusted and just like rationalism it needs another source of knowledge to confirm and authenticate it.

Apart from rationalism and experience as sources of knowledge, Islamic epistemology also perceives revelation as a crucial source of knowledge. Shehu (2002) claims that revelation is often dismissed as a source of knowledge. Modern philosophers believe knowledge to emanate from intellect and human senses. Labeled as a mere mythical conception, revelation has in the past instigated conflicts between some religious factions and scientists. Despite such rows, revelation still remains a significant source of knowledge in Islam. Muslims believe in revelation and consider it a crucial aspect of their faith. This explains there extensive reliance on the holy Quran and the Sunnah as the main sources of Islamic knowledge. As Muslims delve into the many ventures which bring them into contact with all kinds of knowledge, they are influenced by this belief. Revelation takes many forms including direct communication with Allah, inspirations and the use of intermediaries as carriers of messages. Such intermediaries may be prophets who are stated in the Quran to have received information in the form of dreams. This mode is however inexistent since the times of Prophet Muhammad. His death marked the end of revelation through prophets. The form of knowledge acquired through revelation is considered to be highly divine and superior to all other sources of knowledge.

The prophetic mode of revelation often constituted an intense norm of interaction with Allah. However in comparison to Islamic concept of knowledge prophetic knowledge is perceived to be acquired in simplistic manner. Prophetic knowledge is impervious to the performance of any actions and the only form of mandatory requirement is the possession of an irrefutable soul which can receive and hold this knowledge. Also, prophetic knowledge initially construes theoretical intellect and then moves on to the realm of imaginations at the final stages of acquisition. On the other hand, philosophical knowledge starts off with conceptualized imagination and subjectivity of the mind to various views and then it moves to highly theoretical intellect. It is therefore true to conclude that philosophical knowledge details the true entity of nature without the influence of any imagined symbols. Both philosophical and prophetic knowledge hold surmountable truth but only differ in forms of acquisition. This is what has often been used by Islamic philosophers to reconcile Greek philosophy with Islamic knowledge. This was nonetheless impossible as further analysis of the Greek philosophy and its interaction with the views depicted in the Quran indicated different beliefs and doctrines. Regardless of the influence of Greek philosophy in Islam, it sought to obscure the Islamic perception and vision of the embodiment of the holy Quran. Theoretical intellect is also further seen to undergo the stages of potentiality, actuality and acquisition. In view of theoretical intellect being an object of nature, it becomes necessary for it to grasp the essential universal objects as only then can it be permanently acquired (Goodman, 1972). Without the interaction with eternal objects, theoretical intellect disintegrates and ceases to exist.

The shift of human intellect to actuality is seen as the cause of human thought. Davidson illustrates Averroes conception of the actuality of theoretical intellect. This nature of intellect is known to be significantly spiritual surpassing the human soul. As material elements of thought are elevated to actuality there is need for an agent. In order to eventually end up with distinct actual thought, the agent has to be themselves in possession of intelligible thought. In this sense, the active intellect bears effect to images in both the soul and the material intellect. Active intellect thus illuminates material intellect and gains precedence in Islamic philosophy. Epistemology in Islam also views knowledge as light. It is not only synonymous to what is perceived to be Allahs light but also to the sort of light that those who seek knowledge struggle to attain. Ignorance or the lack of knowledge is seen as a form of darkness which is made possible by the presence of doubt found in the human mind. Apart from the Quran, Islamic traditions have always conceived that light is only attainable to those who seek to shift from the unknown to the known. Prophet Mohammad often found himself referring to light and its essentiality in the achievement of Islamic knowledge. Knowledge in Islam is not differentiated from wisdom but it is rather referred to as one entity.  This implies that it is a knowledge which encompasses both the knowledge of an individual self and that of the world. Following past reflections on the ideals of light, Islam became pressured to impart a symbolic reference to light. This saw the utilization of the pen, Quran and the Islamic writings as metaphors depicting this light.

Gnosis in Islamic philosophy is said to the ultimate form of knowledge. As such it trails its existence and permanent authority from the essence of light. The Quran teaches that light is the optimum guide for human kind and it is only derived from Allah. True Islamic insight is thus provided for by the knowledge, guidance and the Quran all which encompass the Islamic faith. Rosenthal (1970, p.158) asserts that light holds great significance in the Quran and as God is reflected to be the provider of knowledge, the process requires the factor of light. If not so, even the Quran would not have remained an important component of Islamic knowledge. This recognition of light in conjunction with both knowledge and wisdom was a concept accepted and adopted by Islam since the ancient times. This theoretical framework of knowledge emanated from Sufism which often emphasized on the interaction of both light and knowledge as the foundation of Islamic mysticism. Other Islamic scholars have either taken a similar approach to this aspect or differed completely. Though in critical awe of the views developed by Sufism Al-Ghazzali came up with a systematic approach to their views. His semantic depiction of light entailed its application to Allah as the ultimate source of all forms of light, the universe as the reactionary result of light which emanates from Allah. Therefore despite the notion that light was optimally synonymous to Allah it also referred to the initial source of light where all other objects derive their light from. As per Al-Ghazzali, epistemology may correspond to the theory of human existence. This claim brings to mind the question of what are the ontological characteristics of the human intelligible universe.

A critical look at these ontological features exhibits the argument developed by Mulla Sadra where his view as a realist derived a unique description of knowledge in Islamic philosophy. Sadra describes knowledge on the basis of various features of ontology the primacy and the stages of being. A study of this ontology unveils a new and unique perspective of the Islamic intellectual traditions. Being according to Sadra is an entity which is devoid of definitions or descriptions. However, their concrete existence can only be detected through empiricism where senses are used as tools of observation. Moreover, what remains unknown to individuals can only become known when they are able to relate it to other known concepts. As human beings this procedure is rather subconsciously followed but it does not surpass the intuitiveness which springs up the familiarity of our being. This concept clearly distinguishes those things which are known to individuals and those which they are able to demonstrate. Izutsu and Mohaghegh (1977, p. 32) indicate that the concept of being is widely known but its depth and reality still remains elusive. Actually the only way of accessing this reality is through illuminative presence. Illuminative presence emphasizes the functions of particularity and spiritual illumination. Human experiences have always been of a particular nature encompassed with unique characteristics. As such it is assumed that all abstractions are meant to distort the uniqueness of all beings. For the conceptualization of knowledge and wisdom it is crucial to establish a link between the awareness of being and spiritual enlightenment.  After formulating the distinction between being and reality a far more familiar distinction to the Islamic philosophy can be carried out. This distinction involves being and essence. These two differ in that with being there is a feasible description while essence has no external existence but only within the mind.

Islamic Epistemology has thus identified knowledge as a mode of being. In an attempt to do so, there is established a need for the presence of knowledge and an ignorant being. Furthermore the fact that knowledge eludes most definitions and that these attempts always culminate to a use of its own conceptions is a similarity shared in the attempt to define being. As such this parallelism between being and knowledge becomes the initial step towards forming a concrete understanding of knowledge as a form of being. In addition, the definition of knowledge as a mode of being is derived from the explanation that any acknowledgement of the existence of a particular thing which is basically a being amounts to acquiring knowledge. Therefore being becomes the basis to which all knowledge and its forms are formulated. The concept of knowing further details the action of grasping and appropriating the intelligible form of the thing you claim to know. From the intelligible world, the intelligible forms are derived and as they unite with human intellect then knowledge is conceived. The intelligible world is considered in Islamic philosophy as the place where forms and reality of all things reside. Hierarchically, this world supersedes the normal world and it thus reflects its ideas and knowledge unto human beings who then acquire knowledge as a consequence. Individual senses are only responsible for the experiencing of various forms but their meanings are only known to us through the intellect and by its interaction in the world of intelligibleness.

A central theme to the concept of Islamic philosophy which encompasses intellectual unity has been known to bring together the subject and object of knowledge. It is from this perspective that knowledge has been understood as representational. In essence knowledge is seen to reflect the relationship between the subject and object of knowledge. The established relationship is a cardinal aspect in the epistemology of Islamic philosophy. This further authenticates Mulla Sadras conceptualization of knowledge. In addition to Sudras emphasis of the unity of the intellectual being and the intellect object, there are other philosophers who have understood knowledge on the single concept of representation. Representation dominates their arguments as the sole significant type of knowledge. This theory of knowledge underpins the epistemological evaluations of ancient philosophy. Knowledge is observed to be the true depiction of the external world within an individuals mind. More so, there exists a link between the mental objects and their images. Therefore, from the external world individuals are able to gather various impressions which are then replicated within the mind. The truth of the acquired knowledge can only be validated through this link where inconsistencies in the mirroring of the external world and mental images account for falsehoods. This theory has a rather debatable assumption which entails the prior existence of the external objects in their interaction with the subject.

Enlightenment is a distinct concept in Islamic epistemology. This concept is based on the systems of belief and science. Originating from the Quran, this concept details the unity of the minds enlightenment with that of the heart. This is done through true belief in both Allah and science. The mind is regarded as irrelevant if it is not guided by the light in its conceptualization of both behaviors and thoughts. Reason in Islam is the unmediated source of knowledge. It comprises of all the logical and rational entities of the human mind. Thus it is meant to be a prerequisite of knowledge. Altwaijri (2010) emphasizes that reason has always been given a high stature in Islam. This has enabled human intellect function effectively in both cultural and scientific fields. As a consequence those barriers and notions put in place in order to jeopardize the freedom of an individuals mind and thus prevent their grasp of knowledge have been eliminated. Islam unlike other forms of epistemology has not been known to impart restrictions for reason. As Muslims interact with Allah they do so without the use of intermediaries but by the guidance of reason. Their quest for knowledge only brings them happiness which is the optimal level of Islamic enlightenment.

Islamic epistemology also constitutes the endeavor to address the place of Gods knowledge within human knowledge and also discovering the role played by those in possession of knowledge. Allah has constantly been attributed with exemplary abilities and characteristic far from the features of power and life bestowed on him. In addition, traditional Islamic philosophy claimed the attainability of knowledge to be subject to the access of divinity or access to the essence of the universe. These features conceptualize God as having distinct knowledge and also being true knowledge.  Thus it is logical to fathom that when human beings attain knowledge they possess a trait attributed to God and that God can become eminent knowledge to human beings. These conceptions have over the years developed numerous philosophical debates entailing the place of Gods knowledge in human knowledge. Some philosophers claim that regardless of the nature of Gods knowledge whether philosophical or mystical it is possible and that human beings can unite with God through many forms including that of knowledge. Those who do not favor this claim argue that human beings due to their limited intellect and existentialism are meant to find ways of intensifying their capabilities. As such they land in the realm of faith where God instills in them the knowledge needed to fully understand the universe. Another view puts the Quran at a pedestal where it gains importance in the revelations of Gods knowledge which is rather vital to the acquisition of true knowledge. Epistemology also assigns roles to those in possession of knowledge. However, these roles are quite distinct and are not governed by any specific guidelines. As such, intellectuals may choose to join politics, religion, law or other sectors. At times where there are disputes on the individual who bares true knowledge it becomes easier to establish this by taking up a leadership role in politics where debates and arguments dominate the essence of knowledge.

Islamic philosophy in its search for those who are entitled to possess knowledge and to venture in search of more knowledge identifies the epistemology of Kalam. However this theory is encountered with the problems of diverse saturated views and the lack of a distinct account of the theory. Regardless of this a critical scrutiny of Kalam provides a significant view of Islamic Knowledge. Kalam exhibits itself as the rational investigation of truth which occurs within theological concepts. Kalam is far from the gnosis and science earlier conceptualized by the Shiites. Thus the Sunni Kalam was formed under different doctrines. These doctrines are initialized by the presence of a form of divine unity. Here, they emulate the foundation of Islamic dogma which identifies Allah as the ultimate spirit where all is grounded.

In their characterization of God, the Sunni regarded him as invisible, unique, timeless, unconditioned and omniscient. While they construed him as a thing they were rush to point out his distinctiveness from other things. Divine justice in Sunni doctrines entails that human beings are responsible for their liberty and freedom. This clearly gave them the role of deriving and formulating knowledge so as to take responsibility of their lives. This concept is not of direct origin from the Sunni but rather a reflection of the Quran. Furthermore, Allahs promise for great rewards to those who seek his presence and the punishment of those who defy his will play a vital role in constraining the freedom of Muslims. This idea of justice in Sunni Kalam also prompts the hunger and desire for knowledge. As a result, the teachings obtained from the Quran guide human beings into intellectual elevation of their heightened abilities. This knowledge of justice, freedom and liberty also formulates a moral imperative amongst Muslims who are required to cultivate and practice moral social behaviors.

Conjecture is not allowed in Islamic philosophy but only when it leads to the authentication of knowledge or in providing certainty. In fact Islams intolerance of skepticism derives an epistemology which ascertains the truth of knowledge as its certainty, its visual component and its intellectual unity of both the subject and object. Even though there is no room for doubt in Islamic philosophy there are some philosophers who have used the element of doubt in formulating new perspectives of intellectual activity. Al- Ghazzali has had significant influence on the concept of doubt in Islamic philosophy. His theory of knowledge detailed the place for methodological doubt and epistemology in Islam. In order to acquire the ultimate truth of facts and knowledge it is crucial to analyze the various sources of knowledge. This view voiced by Al Ghazzali is emphasized in Al-Allaf. These sources and levels of knowledge should match with reality and the many levels which it constitutes.  In his argument, Al- Ghazzali identified Fitra as the state possessed by all human beings from birth and which allows them to immediately recognize their presence of an imminent creator in the world. This state not only accounts for this recognition but also for the determination of the unity between mankind and the creator. Moreover, this state can be enhanced by the use of empirical abilities and reasoning but at times it can be impeded by the presence of doctrines of disbelief and a lack of faith.

In explicating the sources of knowledge Al-Ghazzali claims that it is only through perception that man is able to understand the world. Each form of perception has been distinctly created in order to allow man to understand as many worlds of existence as possible. This accounts for the numerous things which man must either claim to know or endeavor to do so. This philosopher showcased the growth of man as being gradual and which was initiated by the senses. From touching, man becomes aware of the world and its texture and other forms of existences but this sense can only do as much. At this point man needs to us his sight in order to configure that which remains obscure after the use of the sense of touch. After these stages, man is elevated to levels which require the use of the hearing, taste and senses of smell. The intellect is a stage which surpasses the empirical senses. Instead it allows man to conceptualize what cannot be understood through these senses. Without intellect an individual is rendered powerless and unable to discern that which is of intellectual capacity. As such, they are bound to dismiss any perceptions as impossible. At the epitome of all this is the development of mere ignorance. This is also attributed to a lack of reason as this kind of man will claim the existence of such possibilities and then go ahead to live without acknowledging the same.
Prophetic knowledge is only gained through experience and successful encounters with those acclaimed as prophets. Doubt in Islamic philosophy arises when on cannot validate the true nature of such prophets. However, in order to do so it is imperative that one follows the path taken by the said prophets. Only though this acquaintance it becomes possible to delegate truth to various forms of knowledge. In fact the same applies to the increment of knowledge within the Islamic religion. Those who whole comprehend prophecy and what it entails and also dedicate their time to the understanding of the Quran are able to obtain ultimate knowledge of the prophets perceptions. Prophets are meant to be healers of human hearts and in imparting reason into man.  In his conceptualization of reality, Al- Ghazzali differs quite distinctively with other philosophical levels of reality. The epistemological sources of knowledge include revelation, prophecy and the heart which encompass the religious reality of Islam. However the metaphysical and mathematical realities of Islam construe knowledge in terms of the logical reasoning of the human intellect and the abstract and demonstrative forms of human intellect. Physical reality on the other hand has its grasp on the experiences obtained through the interaction of the human senses and intellectual activities. What culminates this concept is the Fitra earlier mentioned which involves the commencement of intuitive knowledge.

In Bakar (2007) Al-Ghazzali is said to have generated doubt within the Islamic philosophy as a result of his quest for certainty. This certainty basically illustrates the knowledge of reality as a valid truth in which knowledge can be manifested without the slightest element of doubt. Furthermore, this reality must be devoid of errors or even the possibility that the mind may misconstrue its real depiction. In observance of how most Muslims are driven to blindly cling to their beliefs, doubt plays a significant role in establishing the reality of such beliefs. This also led to their disregard for religious beliefs but only to the extent that they are misleading to Islam. In fact beliefs are said to possess a positive role when they are used in the acknowledgement of truth according to authority. Therefore if belief systems possess individuals who have acquired true knowledge and have legitimate authority then they are mandated to clarify the truth on religious knowledge. Al-Ghazzali (1980, p. 11) claims that faith is the true form of knowledge which is derived from hearsay and other peoples experiences. Prophetic knowledge falls under this category and becomes the most reliable form of religious knowledge. Beliefs do not contain intense forms of intellect and the fact that it is an avenue of both truth and error makes it an even more unreliable source of knowledge.

In traditional Islamic epistemology there has been fundamental significance placed on the relationship between knowledge and science. Dahlen (2003, p.55) explains that epistemology has ventured into understanding the nature of knowledge and the sources and limits of cognition in formulating knowledge. While the Quran has been shown to play a big role in comprehending these aspects of knowledge, science has not been that far removed from the debate. In fact science is just another component of knowledge. It deals with the materialistic world and has natural objects and phenomena which is observed and measured through the perception of the human senses. Scientific knowledge is thus comprised of the critical elements of observation and reflection. Observation only exercises the experiential senses while reflection entails reason, speculation and the derivation of hypothesis. The meaning and importance of any observed reality is understood through the study of particular predetermined hypothesis. Moreover, simplistic observation does not yield any vital information without the presence of logic and reasoning. A general depiction of sciences arises from the denial of any forms of reality which has not been obtained through empiricism and theoretical reasoning. Thus it is logical to conclude that all reality needs to be examined through similar studies in order to accrue results which are tenable for validation through the presence of both empiricism and reasoning.

The philosophy of science has under its umbrella the concept of religion which mainly details the existentialism which is present in the present world and the next. In fact Islamic philosophers have referred to science as an extension of religion and this also echoes the notions of Albert Einstein in his claim that neither science nor religion can exist independently. If this happens science would be depicted as lame and religion as blind. Furthermore, the Quran affirms that religion does not reject any forms of scientific truths but science does reject religious truths. When the Quran details the work of God it cannot be distanced from the reality of these works as seen in the display of the laws of nature. Science dedicates its studies to the conceptualization and understanding of these laws. Regardless of the lack of perfect synchrony between religion and science Islamic epistemology has found a place for science. As one of the essential tools of science induction uses the observation of detailed phenomena in the formulation of various possible conclusions. Nature in all its forms falls under the category of observable phenomena and using science the chaotic diversity of human nature is unraveled. From the simple concepts of sense experiences these laws transverse to logical systems of thought which is not only verifiable but also authentic. The epistemological concept of the Quran is also founded on inductive reasoning. Through many texts and implications in the Quran it pushes individuals to use their senses, intellect and reason when analyzing their experiences. They are also motivated to explore the extensive world in search of phenomena which will provide different levels of empiricism which further details the various levels of knowledge. The Quran has thus imparted a huge responsibility to all Muslims that they use their inductive intellect in conceptualizing the underlying laws of nature. Munawar (1995) explains that Islamic philosophy is overwhelmed by immense proportions of knowledge. As such most have argued that faith has been responsible for the development of the Muslim civilization. This lack of regard for science does not however indicate that it is inconsequential. In essence it has gained a quintessential role of asserting a form of spiritual identity in the modern world.

The Islamic epistemology and concept of knowledge cannot be completely exhausted without the study of education. Unlike other forms of religion, education has been strongly emphasized in Islam. Al-Attas (2009) explains that since in the ancient times the representation of living objects in mosques had been prohibited, Muslims could not acquire education as the Christians of such times did through the study of biblical scenes in the church. It thus became apparent that it was significant that Muslims learn the craft of reading.  In fact, Prophet Muhammad in the Quran is observed to encourage Muslims to endeavor to acquire knowledge even from such faraway lands like China. Since the conception of Islam, education has been an important part of the same. This has been further elevated by the by the centrality of the Quran which all Muslims are obligated to learn. Other influences for the desire of knowledge have been the possibilities of learning the knowledge required for the practice of many Islamic activities. For instance, the Islamic pillars require individuals to possess knowledge of Islamic prayers and the critical understanding of the hajj. When education is understood as the teaching, learning and acquisition of knowledge, then, it becomes credible that the understanding of Islamic philosophy focuses on the concept of knowledge. Al-Attas (1980, p.18) describes knowledge as the proper recognition of the rightful places of all forms of creation in a way it eventually culminates to the identification of Gods rightful place in the order of existence.

Islamic epistemology details that both knowledge and education are mot mere formulations for the gaining of information of the capability to understand and analyze nature. Instead, these two entities also formulate links to the understanding of divine nature and the reality of human beings. Allah as the main source of knowledge is a belief which has led to the affirmation of the possibilities of both education and knowledge. When this knowledge is derived from God it is conceptualized through several channels. These channels include revelation, teachings, perception, logical reasoning and intuitive capabilities. This further confirms the claims by Al-Attas (1990, p.1) that education is acquired through the use of both deductive and inductive forms of reasoning. Belief has been identified as a crucial component of Islamic knowledge.  The views which can be deducted from these beliefs together with the Quran teachings and their various forms are what incorporate the totality of Islamic consciousness. As such all Muslims must search and cultivate knowledge and it is this concept which accounts the past studies and promotion of sciences which led to the Islamic conception of enlightenment. Islamic education can indeed be traced even before the existence of western philosophy. A very important element of education in Islamic epistemology is the content. Not all forms of knowledge are reflective of education and therefore it becomes necessary to establish this unique form of content. There are specific aspects which need to be inculcated within the various forms of knowledge. This element involves the comprehension of an individuals purpose of seeking knowledge. As such recognition becomes an important element in the definition of both knowledge and education. This is what eminently details the Islamic theory of education.

Contemporary studies on the epistemology of Islamic thought have continued to emphasize the representation of intellectual and conceptualization of knowledge in Islam. The Quran has also often emphasized the significance of understanding the readings within which Allah has imparted knowledge in human beings and granted them the authority to acquire their own knowledge. Without the balance of both the religious aspects and humanity elements expressed in the Quran readings there will be a misunderstanding of contemporary Islamic concepts of knowledge. This sort of equilibrium will be established when individuals are able to acknowledge the importance of religion and the laws of nature in the epistemology of Islamic thought. The respectful regard of God as a higher and authoritative being will attribute to the sensible development of todays society. It will also be quite easy and possible to acquire true knowledge. There are philosophers who call for the conceptualization of all knowledge within the Islamic epistemological constraints. As a methodological issue the Islamic conception of knowledge can be used to enforce the acknowledgement of the relationship between revelation and existentialism as part of other societies concepts of knowledge.

In conclusion, paper discussion stipulates the fundamental elements which incorporate the epistemology and Islamic concept of knowledge. From a historical background, it has been identified that Islamic philosophy holds a distinct nature of knowledge. The nature of knowledge in Islam is predicted by the Muslims search for happiness. Furthermore, this is made obligatory by the Quran which through prophetic revelations encourages Muslims to undertake individual responsibilities in their acquisition of knowledge. Identified sources of knowledge are revelation, empiricism and logical reasoning. While they might exist independently, the ultimate knowledge in Islam requires the interaction of these entities with human intellect. This significant placement of intellect at the forefront of Islamic epistemology has been argued in line with Sadras intelligible features. The interaction of empirical observations and the intellectual subjects culminates into knowledge being the fundamental threshold of human beings.

Other aspects of Islamic epistemology discussed in the paper include the role of doubt in Islamic knowledge. Advanced by Al-Ghazzali doubt is only permitted in Islamic philosophy when it leads to the formation of intellectual certainty. If not so, it becomes an impediment of knowledge and also fosters ignorance. In a bid to establish the connection between knowledge and education the element of recognition of reality and the place of God in existentialism has been noted to be of crucial importance. In conclusion, it is paramount that epistemology and the concept of knowledge in Islamic philosophy have a vital role to play in todays society. Due to its strong foundation in truth, Islamic philosophy can be emulated by all societies which aim at encouraging the use of knowledge for the attainment of lasting development.

Social responsibilities of corporations

Friedman in his analysis of the social responsibilities of a business acknowledges the fact that previous analysis have mostly been loose and lacked the vigor necessary to justify the theories put forth regarding social responsibility of corporate entities. The question of social responsibility of any entity leaves a lot to be discussed and solutions attained. In putting forth the question Does corporate entities have social responsibilities one is left with a whole lot of puzzles to solve. Social responsibility is basically corporate responsibility. While each corporate entities responsibility is making profit, it is vital to ask, whether there are any other responsibilities that are expected of corporations. This paper seeks to explore the social responsibilities of any firm and further look in to the two theories put forth stakeholder theory and the stockholder theory in order to develop a conclusion as to which of the two is a justifiable approach to decision making in firms. It will further highlight the failures of the stockholder theories that make the stakeholder theory as my preferred model of corporate decision making. The main questions this paper will be seeking to answer is Does corporate organizations have social responsibilities other than making profit.

Social responsibilities originate from basic to the most fundamental unit of a corporate executive. It originates from ones own conscience, family and eventually the country or even the globe as a whole. Ones social responsibility may be guided by the effects from his nucleus origin or even key global issues like the ozone depletion. When this person is a corporate executive, this decision may translate into a corporate executive decision that could positively or negatively affect the lives of the people. Friedman questions, within which premises will such a person can exercise social responsibility without going overboard and exercising roles assigned to various other entities within the society like legislation, jurisdiction and implementation. When he asks the moral basis of employing unskilled workers in order to reduce poverty or using stockholders resources to conserve the environment through managing pollution, he poses another question as to what limit can a corporate executive exercise social responsibility. In summary, Friedman describes social responsibility as a cloak of actions that are actually justified on grounds other than the reason for such actions. Two theories have been put forth in discussing social responsibility of firms. These are stakeholders theory and the stockholders theory.

The stakeholders theory was developed by Freeman.  The corporate management is put under an obligation to both stakeholders and stockholders. All the groups that are in one way or another affected by either one or a combination of a firms operation are taken into consideration. The theory in essence acknowledges that for the success of a firm, the interests of all the stakeholders need to be put into consideration. It creates a separation between management and ownership of the firm. Ethically, it expresses a moral sentiment as to the need to treat people as and end rather than a means to maximizing profit. By putting the interest of all the stakeholders at heart, the theory in deed builds the public image of the firm as all the stakeholders find some sort of contentment in the fact that their wishes have been put into consideration thus they tend to identify more with the firm. However some critics of this theory have long argued that the theory proposes that all the stakeholders be included in key decision making, this is not true. It would be fallacious to say that treating someone as an end rather than a means requires his active participation rather this will only require following of a set of ethical and legal values stipulated. A good example may be, following the terms of employment. The theory may in essence be summarily defended by the appeal to rights and dignity of all the stakeholders involved and secondly, the appeal for overall good of the society. In summary, stakeholders theory may be defined as an illustration of the corporate social responsibilities taking into regard the interests of the employees, customers and the society other than the main goal of profit making on behalf of the stockholders.

On the other hand, the stockholders theory put forth by Friedman puts the shareholders interest far above that of the customers, suppliers, employees as well as other key stakeholders of the firm. It focuses more on the language of hierarchy with the top most member of the hierarchy having hisher interest first. The managers who basically make key corporate decisions are arguably agents of the stockholders thus the theory proposes that the managers key responsibility is to the stockholders.The stockholder provides the capital as an investment and thus serves as the profiteer of the corporation. His prime and possible single interest is to maximize profit. It therefore follows that by putting his interest first, profit becomes the sole driving decision making parameter of the corporation. Friedman, in putting forth his theory, states that there exists only one social responsibility of a business which is using its resources in activities that increase its profits within the rules of the game. This includes engaging in a free competition, without deception or fraud of any form. This in essence puts the main focus on maximizing profit and hence satisfy stockholders who are the investors in the firm. The high profits ensure that capital is readily available. Ethically its proponents may argue that every owner of a property is liable to fully reap the benefits arising from it. In this case, the company belongs to the stockholders. Basically, the theory is defended by the appeal to property of shareholders and the appeal to contract of the business manager. The theory also referred to as the shareholder theory may be summarily said to be a proponent of the existence of only one social obligation of a firms cooperate management, which is maximizing profit for the shareholders.

In general I may say that the stakeholders theory is more appealing as compared to stockholders theory. It forms a heuristic for viewing corporations as comprising of all stakeholders including the shareholders, customers and employees. Though limited by the focus it puts on the human participants only, it is more appealing as it has plenty of ethical backing with it. While the critics have argued that it gives the managers some intractable philosophical difficulties when it comes to dealing with some non-human topics as natural environments, this is not true. Generally, any environmentalist will agree that environment and the community are interrelated. The environment is basically a cycle of activities that form the life of humans. It therefore would be false to make the claims mentioned above. Not a Single Corporation can claim to be considerate of the community without considering how its activities impact on the environment the same community live in.  Stakeholders theory therefore moves to capture all the fundamental areas that its critics may move in to cite as its failures.

Stockholders theorys friendliness to stockholders ends up ignoring key factors that play a critical role in corporate development in the modern world. While initially, stockholder management theory formed the basis for business management, the 21st century has provided more challenges that it may be unable to handle. Its policies are unable to capture the global, multifaceted approach that businesses have had to take. In instances where it where it captures the same, its evident that it may be too late to take any appropriate action against it. Through lack of consideration of various stakeholders who play a key role or are affected by a firm, the corporations public image may be tainted beyond repair. Public image is known to play a fundamental role in development of corporations. The recent past has seen corporations adopt publicity campaigns which involves the community as a marketing strategy. This in essence though intent on making profit, puts into consideration the interests of the community and uses this to build its image as a stepping stone towards expounding its market. The growing needs of the market and competition have led firms to attempt to present themselves as socially responsible to all the stakeholders in a bid to win market shares.

Another fundamental shortcoming of the stockholders theory is its inconsistency with the law. Over time, legal procedures have evolved to put constraints concerning the required trade offs in the corporate world. Different countries have introduced legislations that ensure that all corporations are held socially responsible for their activities. Taking an example of the product liability law, the law upholds that all corporations must and will be held liable for effects resulting from its product. The civil rights act further imposes restrictions on firms to observe moral ethics through illegalizing discrimination of other groups like the disabled and the aged. The companies are compelled to exercise moral decisions that go beyond their obligation of profit making. In essence, it acknowledges that all corporations must put into consideration the claims made by its stakeholders including customers, suppliers, the local community and the employees.

Its inconsistency with the basic social ethics further renders it ineffective in the modern world. Previously, it had been argued that business decisions should be separated from ethical decisions. This is however impossible as both have to be integrated to enhance the success of a business. Freeman states that the pursuit of profit is in deed wicked and immoral if not curbed by other external forces. He also cites the need for integrating ethics as part of a complex stakeholder system rather than treating it as a side constraint to profit making. For the success of the business it is fundamental to incorporate both normative and applied ethics in running of the business. Ethics forms a ground for moral judgment of any corporation. The changing world has seen corporations relieving their corporate management executives, off their duty on the basis that their actions taints the image of the company publicly regardless of the fact that they have previously performed well in increasing of profits. Unlike stakeholders theory which forecasts the expectations that may result from today, stockholders theory puts more emphasis on ensuring that a company makes maximal profit in a given financial year.

The corporations that serve the interest of the stakeholders have emerged in the current world as the major profit making entities. Their engagement in operations that mutually benefit all the stakeholders have made them successful and prosperous compared to the others. When the employees for instance feel left out, their morale will definitely be low and this will impact negatively on production of these firms. On the other hand employees whose interests are considered, have high morale and thus production will be highly increased and ultimately increased profits will result into stockholder satisfaction while the interest of other stakeholders is also considered. Lack of value can therefore be a result of stockholders theory of corporate decision making. This would result from the low morale of other stakeholders who may offer advice, provide land for expansion and even increase productivity.

The stockholders theory also ignores the role of normative arguments instead focusing on making profits within the law. The law is its only constraint.  Management ignores the role of distinguishing between right and wrong in decision making and instead bases all decisions on profit making. This ends up hurting the very people who can contribute to development of the corporation needless to mention the resulting poor imaging and branding of the corporate organization. Its resistance to change leads to the ultimate negative impacts on the entity. Its failure to fulfill the needs of the different people ranging from local population, customers and employees leaves the corporation vulnerable for targeting by pressure groups, damages their image and brand, results to loss of large amount of sales, disgruntled customers and incurring of plenty of legal expenses.

In conclusion, it will be important to note the ignorance of the stockholders theory to social consequences hence the need for an adequate theory for corporate social responsibilities within corporate organizations. This is where corporate stakeholder responsibility comes in as a substitute. It caters for the weaknesses displayed by the other model. Unlike stockholders theory, it does not allow stockholders to abridge the rights of others. It further takes into consideration key business virtues of fairness, efficiency, integrity and keeping of commitments in addition to being in line with the pragmatists view of ensuring freedom and solidarity in everyday life (Tom L. Beauchamp 66). It is important that all stakeholders in any corporation are treated within the standard ethical guidelines of the society (Tom L. Beauchamp 70).  Through this, the business takes an economic approach in which all stakeholders are considered to possess economical assets which are traded off to obtain greater profit returns which is the ultimate aim of every corporation.

Hume and Rationality

I would like to address the concept of Instrumental Rationality on this paper through answering the question regarding Hume and Rationality. The situation given was that David prefers taking hot showers than cold ones, and that taking the latter is his acknowledgd lesser good as he contrast it to the former, and thus have an ardent affection for taking hot showers than cold showers. And one Sunday evening, David takes a bath, and that he knows that the left tap turns on the hot water and the right tap turns on the cold one, and upon turning the left tap on, the water from the left tap was not too hot but just right. And thus, the questions given for the following scenario are as follows a.) According to Humes theory of rationality, does David have an irrational desire, if upon getting into the bath he desires to turn on the right tap Why or why not How does this example exhibit the relationship between reason and desirepassion for Hume And, b.) Imagine that David desires to turn the right tap because he believes that the right tap turns on the hot water and that he wants to take a hot shower. Is Davids desire irrational in this case Why or why not These are the questions that will be addressed on this paper.

First of, what is Humes concept of reason or rationality vis--vis passion or desire According to Hume (1985), reason and passion are in constant combat, where the reason represents the better part of a person, and people are virtuous if they would live in accordance to their reason. However, reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will, and reason alone can never oppose passion in directing the will. With this kind of argumentation of Hume, it seems that reason cannot compete with passion alone however, reason has two functions according him. First is that reason discovers truths about the abstract relations of ideas and therefore discovers the relationships between objects (Hume, 1985).  What motivates our action for Hume is not our reason but rather, our passion or desire.

Second, what is instrumental rationality According to Gauss (2008), all of our thinking about rational action is the instrumental theory of rationality. And this theory was developed by Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan and by David Hume in his Treatise and Enquiry. For Hume, we satisfy our desires through rational actions (Gauss, 2008). Thus, given the situation above, if David will, upon desire, turn on the right tap, where his desire is to take a hot shower but knowing that the right tap produces cold water, then his actions motivated by his desirepassion is irrational.

According to the theory of instrumental rationality, Davids action will be instrumentally rational if and only if his action is an effective way to achieve his desire, goal, end, or taste. But it upon turning on the right tap, David fails to achieve his desire to have a hot shower. Thus, his action of turning on the right tap implies failure in achieving his desire. Although, it is irrational because of his passiondesire, he took this action.
For Hume, passion can be unreasonable in an extended sense when passion rest upon a mistaken belief, or when we choose insufficient means in achieving our desired end. Thus, answering the second set of questions, if David upon a belief that the right tap produces hot water and turns it on, his action is still irrational because it rest upon a mistaken belief that the right tap produces hot water.

It is only in achieving our desirepassiongoalend that our actions become rational provided that it does not rely on any mistaken belief given the scenario above. The action of David of turning on the right tap is irrational because it does not achieve his goal of taking hot showers, unless David, by that time, prefers a cold one, then his actions will be rational.

An Analysis of Edward Herman and Noam Chomskys Propaganda Model

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, in Manufacturing Consent, provide a misleading argument as they posit that the mass media serves as an instrument of power which mobilizes support for the hegemonic groups in society. Such a view was initially forwarded in the beginning of their text as they state,
(T)he mediaserve to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate the state and private activity,their choices, emphases, and omissions can often be understood best, and sometimes with striking clarity, by analyzing them in such terms.

The succeeding parts of their text present their argument in support of this claim in the form of what they coined as the propaganda model. In line with this, the following discussion provides a refutation of Herman and Chomskys propaganda model. The refutation focuses on their conceived role of the medias reliance on the information provided by the primary entities of power in society. The initial part of the discussion will provide an outline of Herman and Chomskys propaganda model whereas the later part of the discussion will provide the bases for the refutation of their claim.

The propaganda model, as it is specified by Herman and Chomsky, provides an explanation of the rare deviation between the views heralded by media reports and the members of the corporate and political elites in the United States. For both authors, the term propaganda accurately depicts the information provided by the media as it serves to veil the true intentions of the hegemonic groups in society (Herman and Chomsky xiii). As such, the goal of a propaganda model is to show the process through which media information is affected by the corporate and political elites.

A propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices. It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their message across to the public.

The model thereby sketches the foundations that led to the current relationship between the media and the hegemonic groups. At this point, it is important to note that Herman and Chomskys argument is based on a free market analysis which perceives the media as a social entity that is completely embedded in the power relations determined by the arrangements of the free market. They point out however that the conditions set by this type of market are not without constraints. The manifestations of this can be seen in the different filters specified by Herman and Chomsky in their propaganda model, these being (1) corporate filter, (2) advertising filter, (3) sourcing filter, (4) flak filter, and (5) ideological filter.

The two initial filters demonstrate the role of private interests in the media. The corporate filter focuses on the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms which emphasizes the common interests shared by both the members of the media and the major corporations in society. Herman and Chomsky point out that as a consequence of the existence of shared interests between both groups, information that runs contrary to the interests of major corporations and political groups are less likely to be heard as opposed to those which forward the dissenting views. In the same manner, the advertising filter manifests the link between the media and commercial interests. This is apparent as media output is created in such a way that is appealing to the type of audience that are targeted by the advertisers. As a result of this, there is an imposed limitation to critical programs that are considered to interfere with the buying mood. The two initial filters, in this sense, manifest the extent of the restraints on what is considered as the free market. In Herman and Chomskys perspective such is the case since as opposed to providing an avenue for critical discourse, the media merely provides an avenue for the maintenance of certain hegemonic interests as a result of the private interests of these groups on media organizations and vice versa.

In conjunction to the two initial filters, the three later filters aim to reinforce the machinations in society enabled by the corporate and advertising filters. Since journalists are highly dependent on their elite sources in the construction of the news, they tend to be reliant on certain entities from both the corporate and political elites. As a result of this, the news broadcasted to the public become tinted by the perspectives of these entities. In addition to this, the flak filter also highlights which types of information are considered to be less controversial. Flak here refers to the negative responses to a media statement or program(in) the form of letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits, speeches, bills before Congress, and other modes of complaint, threat and punitive action. In journalists attempt to distance their selves from flak, there is a heightened tendency to merely provide information that is considered to be acceptable to the public. Finally, the role of the ideology filter is apparent as it provides a worldview that enables the publics adherence to the current setup in society. As Herman and Chomsky state, (I)deology helps mobilize the populace against an enemy, and because the concept is fuzzy it can be used against anybody advocating policies that threaten property interests or support accommodation.... (contrary to the elite perspective) (29).
As can be seen from the previous discussion, Herman and Chomskys propaganda model perceives the media as the central tool of propaganda in capitalist democratic societies. In Chomskys framework, the medias position in maintaining the place of the status quo does not necessarily entail the medias coercion as its members are conceived to be a part of the framework. In the case of the third filter, for example, the symbiotic relationship between journalists and their sources necessitates the media, for pragmatic reasons, to provide the views of the corporate and political elites.

The media need a steady, reliable flow of the raw material of news. They have daily news demands and imperative news schedules that they must meet. They cannot afford to have reporters and cameras at all places where important stories may break. Economics dictates that they concentrate their resources where significant news often occurs where important rumours and leaks abound, and where regular press conferences are held.

In this sense, the members of the media are not coerced to participate in the framework that enables the proliferation of propaganda since market forces dictate which entities may be considered as the most pragmatic sources of information.

An interesting aspect of Herman and Chomskys propaganda model lies in their criticism of the mechanisms involved in the medias production of information. They themselves recognize this as they argue that the importance of the model lies in its ability to provide a systematic and highly political dichotomization in news coverage based on serviceability to important domestic interests. By emphasizing the medias role in creating forms of bias in society, they specify the politics involved in the formation of such a bias. Despite of this, Herman and Chomskys propaganda model is misleading as it fails to account for instances of genuine social and political changes in society.

As was mentioned in the initial part of the discussion, Herman and Chomsky situate their model within the context of capitalist democratic societies. The free market exists as a result of the capitalist setup in society. Such a setup coincides with the conditions of democratic government since such a government ensures the maintenance of the practice of liberty and equality in society. In addition to this, a democratic society also ensures the existence of pluralism. In an ideal situation, the media ought to serve as the vehicle for the manifestation of the plurality of values in society. As such, the media is forced to weigh the conflicts between liberty and equality. Such is the case since in order to pave the way for the objective delivery of news, the members of the media ought to continually assess which current events ought to be given importance over others. In Herman and Chomskys propaganda model, the structure of the media as an institution prevents it from delivering objective information that manifests the plurality of values and views in society. In the case of the sourcing filter, this is due to the pragmatic value of accepting information from the members of both the corporate and political elites. The problem with such a perspective however is evident if one considers that by considering the members of the elite entities as the main source of the media information, it fails to account for the instances wherein genuine change occurs as a result of media information.

It is important to note that Herman and Chomskys propaganda model assumes the journalists internalization of the mechanics of the institution. In other words, it assumes that journalists internalize specific beliefs and attitudes which in turn affect their performance in the field. From a purely quantitative analysis of the institution, Herman and Chomsky thereby implicitly base their argument on a psychological process which entails that when  a person is submerged in a particular situation that requires the performance of certain actions, that person will immediately adapt to conditions set in his environment. This implicit basis for their argument however fails to account for the aspect of rational choice in the sense that it is possible for a media personnel to critically analyze a situation and rationally decide the type or form of action that he will follow. Although such a view ought to be framed within Chomskys perspective that freedom of choice is wildly misrepresented in society, it is still important to consider that by failing to account for the aspect of psychological phenomena in their propaganda model, they also fail to account for the role of choice in explaining the elite framing of media information. Another problem evident in Herman and Chomskys propaganda model lies in its implicit assumption that the type of information that the media propagates has an effect on its audience. Even if it is the case that it has an effect on its audience, it still assumes that the media deliberately provides information that aims to ensure the maintenance of the status quo.

Within this context, Herman and Chomskys propaganda model provides a misleading account of the medias role in the maintenance of the hegemonic groups in society as it fails to account for the implicit assumptions of their propaganda model. By failing to account for these implicit assumptions, they forward a claim which provides a view of media personnel as entities incapable of rational choice.