Tweet
Tuesday, December 06, 2005 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version
COMMENT: Islam and the challenge of modernity —Ishtiaq Ahmed
Professor Ali’s thesis is that of Islamic exceptionalism. He observes that whereas other non-Western cultures have successfully adjusted to the notion of an economics of growth and cultural Westernisation, Islam has not. The reason is that other cultures — Confucianism and Shintoism — are ethical systems and not revealed religions. On the other hand, Islam, a revealed religion, requires divine authority to justify change and adjustment
In his monumental work published posthumously, Islam and the Challenges of Modernity: An Agenda for the Twenty First Century (Islamabad: National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research, Centre of Excellence, 2004) the late Professor Shaukat Ali, a veteran educationist settled in the USA, has compiled not only what South Asian Muslims have written on the need for an Islamic revival and reform but virtually the work of scholars from the entire Muslim world. Scholars such as Professor Shaukat Ali are a rarity as narrow specialisation and pedantic methodological concerns are replacing the classical scholar whose vision was panoramic.
As a concept, modernity is an over- and loosely-used generic tool that needs more stringent treatment. Essentially modernity signifies the end of religious authority as the source of objective knowledge about the world and reliance on science and scientific procedures. Practically it means manipulating nature for producing wealth and an economy of growth. However, the post-modern phase, which post-industrial societies are now experiencing, indicates the limits of classical modernity and rationality and a shift to cultural and spiritual concerns such as identity and preservation of nature. How does the Islamic heritage relate to such developments?
Professor Ali’s thesis is that of Islamic exceptionalism. He observes that whereas other non-Western cultures have successfully adjusted to the notion of an economics of growth and cultural Westernisation, Islam has not. The reason is that other cultures — Confucianism and Shintoism — are ethical systems and not revealed religions. On the other hand, Islam, a revealed religion, requires divine authority to justify change and adjustment. It is not clear where he places Hinduism which is not a revealed religion in the sense of the Middle Eastern faiths such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but neither is it simply a system of ethics.
But I believe there is a point to his argument that we need to consider how religions of Middle Eastern origin view societal changes. The Christian ecclesiastical order put up a fierce fight before modernity could be consolidated and Israel remains a religious type of state despite its democratic political system.
With regard to Islamic exceptionalism, Professor Ali believes that only change which is compatible with the sharia will be acceptable in Muslim society. Since at least the time of Jamaluddin Afghani the sharia has been interpreted rather flexibly. The limits set by sharia are not easily fixed. What we find happening is that while some traditional and fundamentalist groups try to resist modernity, even they do it selectively.
Some 150 years ago fatwas were issued against travel by train; pictures were considered un-Islamic and telephone and radio subversive gadgets. I believe only drawing or painting pictures is still considered wrong. Nowadays mullahs are using modern gadgetry including video cameras to publicise their point of view. The problem arises when modernity implies social emancipation. At this point, the mullahs are adamant about preventing equal rights and freedom for women and non-Muslims.
But even on such controversial matters things have not remained static. In Indonesia, the two main conservative movements, the Muhammadiyah, with a membership of 25 million in a population of 225 million and second only to the Nahdatul Ulama — Revival of Islamic Preachers — which has a membership of 30 million, have become more amenable to interpreting the sharia flexibly. For example they now say that privatisation of religion is possible in Islam.
Therefore it is not all that easy to establish the limits which the sharia sets to change and reform. It seems that vastly radical interpretations are possible. In this connection one can also note that Muslim secularists sometimes do invoke the hadith literature to justify that secularism is permissible in Islam. Justice Muhammad Munir of Pakistan is a case in point. It is a pity that the compatibility of reform with sharia is not discussed in depth or sufficiently critically.
With regard to individual thinkers the book is truly a digest of a vast body of literature. We find some well-known names as well as many others who are probably being presented for the first time to a Pakistani audience. We learn about Khayr al-Din Tunisi (died 1889) a freed slave who by sheer dint of merit rose to occupy the highest offices in the Tunisian political system. He advocated modernisation.
The more well-known Jamaluddin Afghani (died 1897) believed that Islamic civilisation was superior to the Western one because Islam was a religion of progress and reason whereas Christianity was full of superstitions. Therefore the way forward is to revive true Islam as given in the Quran and Sunnah rather than what the ulema had been presenting. His disciple, the Egyptian Mohammad Abduh, was more focused on the purification of the law unlike his teacher who emphasised culture. Sir Syed took the position that there could be no clash between revelation and science because Islam was a religion based on nature. Of course Iqbal is given special attention and is the main source of inspiration for the reform that the author has in mind.
Fundamentalist thinkers are also included in the book. Syed Qutb of Egypt considered that the basic clash in the world was between Islam and jahiliyat (ignorance). Western civilisation of course is identified as jahiliyat. Then there are Abul Ala Maududi and Ayatullah Khomeini who represent different fundamentalist models of Islamic state. The common thread is their commitment to a holistic enforcement of the sharia to all departments of life. Such positions have played a central role in giving birth to extremist movements some of which have adopted terrorist strategies to defeat what they perceive is the age of ignorance.
The author also reviews many reforms undertaken to modernise Islamic law. He writes positively about the Muslim Family Laws introduced during the Ayub era. Indeed his approach is imbued in Iqbal’s belief in ijithad. Unfortunately Professor Shaukat Ali could not write the concluding chapter or for some reason the editors have failed to include it. Under the circumstances we can only speculate about the message he wanted to convey to his audience.
The author is an associate professor of political science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email address is [email protected]
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-12-2005_pg3_2
COMMENT: Islam and the challenge of modernity —Ishtiaq Ahmed
Professor Ali’s thesis is that of Islamic exceptionalism. He observes that whereas other non-Western cultures have successfully adjusted to the notion of an economics of growth and cultural Westernisation, Islam has not. The reason is that other cultures — Confucianism and Shintoism — are ethical systems and not revealed religions. On the other hand, Islam, a revealed religion, requires divine authority to justify change and adjustment
In his monumental work published posthumously, Islam and the Challenges of Modernity: An Agenda for the Twenty First Century (Islamabad: National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research, Centre of Excellence, 2004) the late Professor Shaukat Ali, a veteran educationist settled in the USA, has compiled not only what South Asian Muslims have written on the need for an Islamic revival and reform but virtually the work of scholars from the entire Muslim world. Scholars such as Professor Shaukat Ali are a rarity as narrow specialisation and pedantic methodological concerns are replacing the classical scholar whose vision was panoramic.
As a concept, modernity is an over- and loosely-used generic tool that needs more stringent treatment. Essentially modernity signifies the end of religious authority as the source of objective knowledge about the world and reliance on science and scientific procedures. Practically it means manipulating nature for producing wealth and an economy of growth. However, the post-modern phase, which post-industrial societies are now experiencing, indicates the limits of classical modernity and rationality and a shift to cultural and spiritual concerns such as identity and preservation of nature. How does the Islamic heritage relate to such developments?
Professor Ali’s thesis is that of Islamic exceptionalism. He observes that whereas other non-Western cultures have successfully adjusted to the notion of an economics of growth and cultural Westernisation, Islam has not. The reason is that other cultures — Confucianism and Shintoism — are ethical systems and not revealed religions. On the other hand, Islam, a revealed religion, requires divine authority to justify change and adjustment. It is not clear where he places Hinduism which is not a revealed religion in the sense of the Middle Eastern faiths such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but neither is it simply a system of ethics.
But I believe there is a point to his argument that we need to consider how religions of Middle Eastern origin view societal changes. The Christian ecclesiastical order put up a fierce fight before modernity could be consolidated and Israel remains a religious type of state despite its democratic political system.
With regard to Islamic exceptionalism, Professor Ali believes that only change which is compatible with the sharia will be acceptable in Muslim society. Since at least the time of Jamaluddin Afghani the sharia has been interpreted rather flexibly. The limits set by sharia are not easily fixed. What we find happening is that while some traditional and fundamentalist groups try to resist modernity, even they do it selectively.
Some 150 years ago fatwas were issued against travel by train; pictures were considered un-Islamic and telephone and radio subversive gadgets. I believe only drawing or painting pictures is still considered wrong. Nowadays mullahs are using modern gadgetry including video cameras to publicise their point of view. The problem arises when modernity implies social emancipation. At this point, the mullahs are adamant about preventing equal rights and freedom for women and non-Muslims.
But even on such controversial matters things have not remained static. In Indonesia, the two main conservative movements, the Muhammadiyah, with a membership of 25 million in a population of 225 million and second only to the Nahdatul Ulama — Revival of Islamic Preachers — which has a membership of 30 million, have become more amenable to interpreting the sharia flexibly. For example they now say that privatisation of religion is possible in Islam.
Therefore it is not all that easy to establish the limits which the sharia sets to change and reform. It seems that vastly radical interpretations are possible. In this connection one can also note that Muslim secularists sometimes do invoke the hadith literature to justify that secularism is permissible in Islam. Justice Muhammad Munir of Pakistan is a case in point. It is a pity that the compatibility of reform with sharia is not discussed in depth or sufficiently critically.
With regard to individual thinkers the book is truly a digest of a vast body of literature. We find some well-known names as well as many others who are probably being presented for the first time to a Pakistani audience. We learn about Khayr al-Din Tunisi (died 1889) a freed slave who by sheer dint of merit rose to occupy the highest offices in the Tunisian political system. He advocated modernisation.
The more well-known Jamaluddin Afghani (died 1897) believed that Islamic civilisation was superior to the Western one because Islam was a religion of progress and reason whereas Christianity was full of superstitions. Therefore the way forward is to revive true Islam as given in the Quran and Sunnah rather than what the ulema had been presenting. His disciple, the Egyptian Mohammad Abduh, was more focused on the purification of the law unlike his teacher who emphasised culture. Sir Syed took the position that there could be no clash between revelation and science because Islam was a religion based on nature. Of course Iqbal is given special attention and is the main source of inspiration for the reform that the author has in mind.
Fundamentalist thinkers are also included in the book. Syed Qutb of Egypt considered that the basic clash in the world was between Islam and jahiliyat (ignorance). Western civilisation of course is identified as jahiliyat. Then there are Abul Ala Maududi and Ayatullah Khomeini who represent different fundamentalist models of Islamic state. The common thread is their commitment to a holistic enforcement of the sharia to all departments of life. Such positions have played a central role in giving birth to extremist movements some of which have adopted terrorist strategies to defeat what they perceive is the age of ignorance.
The author also reviews many reforms undertaken to modernise Islamic law. He writes positively about the Muslim Family Laws introduced during the Ayub era. Indeed his approach is imbued in Iqbal’s belief in ijithad. Unfortunately Professor Shaukat Ali could not write the concluding chapter or for some reason the editors have failed to include it. Under the circumstances we can only speculate about the message he wanted to convey to his audience.
The author is an associate professor of political science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email address is [email protected]
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-12-2005_pg3_2
Ijithad has to become a norm as Iqbal had advocated. If some 150 years ago fatwas were issued against travel by train; pictures were considered un-Islamic and telephone and radio subversive gadgets and that is now loger valid and for reasons unknown except that it is an archaic a thought and antediluvian, then one wonders what is the inhibition to become progressive.
