Chapter IX
ISLAM AND MODERNISM - IV

DR. FAZLUR RAHMAN [1919-1988]
Dr. Fazalur Rahman, an eminent Pakistani scholar,  contends that the decline of the Muslim world did not begin with Western penetration in the seventeentheighteenth centuries, but with the intellectual ossification which took root in the aftermath of the collapse of the Abbasids in the thirteenth century. This fact is obvious considering the quantity and quality of original scholarship produced by the Muslims after the collapse of the Abbasids. "The ability of the Europeans to penetrate the Muslim world was the most dramatic evidence of the internal decline of Muslim society, not its cause." Here Rahman is echoing the Algerian thinker Malek Bennabi's thesis that the Muslims became colonized because they had become "colonizable".67

Since the cause of Muslim decadence lies in the adherence to an Islamic methodology which has put a vast chasm between Islamic society and the Quranic principles, Fazlur Rahman argues, the path to revival lies in developing an Islamic methodology which will close this gap.

Rahman proposes a new methodology that strives to draw a clear distinction between "historical Islam and normative Islam". This distinction  has to be drawn both in regards to Islamic principles and Islamic institutions. He states that the multitude of Quranic revelations took place "in, although not merely for, a given historical context". Muslims must recognize the essential feature in the revelation which is meant not only for the specific context in which it was revealed but is intended by the Creator to "outflow through and beyond that given context of history". This can be accomplished by  undertaking a comprehensive study of the Quran to firmly establish the general principles and required objectives elucidated therein. The object of this comprehensive study would be to establish the elan of the Quran. Thereafter, the asbab alnuzul (the historical circumstances surrounding a specific revelation) should be used to examine specific pronouncements, to ensure that the pronouncement is in keeping with the elan of the Quran. This will allow for the resurrection of the original thrust of the Islamic message, free from the accumulated debris of tradition, precedent, and culture of the past millennium.

He argues that the examples of polygamy and slavery make it abundantly clear that whereas the spirit of the Quranic legislation exhibits an obvious direction towards the progressive embodiment of the fundamental human values of fieedom and responsibility in fresh legislation, nevertheless the actual legislation of the Quran had partly to accept the then existing society as a term of reference. This clearly meant that the actual legislation of the Quran cannot have meant to be literally eternal by the Quran itself....Very soon, however, the Muslim lawyers and dogmaticians began to confuse the issue and the strictly legal injunctions of the Quran were thought to apply to any society, no matter what its conditions and what its inner dynamics. There is a good deal of evidence to believe that in the very early period, the Muslims interpreted the Quran pretty freely. But after a period of juristic development during the late Ist/7th and throughout the 2nd/8th century, the prominent features of which were the rise of the Tradition and the development of technical, analogical reasoning, the lawyers neatly tied themselves and the Community down to the 'text' of the Holy Book until the content of Muslim law and theology became buried under the weight of literalism."68

In addition to this, he says, the Muslims have to become aware of the historical transformation of important Islamic institutions. Only when they are able to determine the impact of various sociopolitical trends upon their legal, intellectual, and political institutions they will be able to distinguish the "historically accidental from the essentially Islamic" ; 69  This comprehensive study of the Quran and various Islamic institutions would go a long way in clearing up the endemic confusion amongst the Muslims between the general/universal Islamic principles and their specific/historical application in the past. Stopping at this point would be useless, a detailed study of the problem afflicting the Islamic societies should be undertaken. Then the general principles garnered from the study of the Quran would be applied to the particular problems faced by modern Islamic societies in order to come up with a satisfactory solution.

Rahman summarizes his methodology in the following words: "In building any genuine and viable Islamic set of laws and institutions, there has to be a two fold movement: First one must move from the concrete case treatments of the Quran—taking the necessary and relevant social conditions of that time into account—to the general principles upon which the entire teaching converges. Second, from this general level there must be a movement back to specific legislation, taking into account the necessary and relevant conditions now, obtaining."70

He asserts: "But the real problem of the Muslim society is to assimilate, adapt, modify and reject the force,  generated within its own fabric by the introduction of new institutions —of education, of industry, of communication, etc.—  as these forces are purely good, necessary evils, or positively harmful. The new forces have an ethic of their own and a simple return to the past is certainly no way to solve this problem—unless we want to delude ourselves. But recourse to the Quran and Sunnah in order to get therefrom an understanding of, and guidance for, solving our new problems will undoubtedly meet the situation. This is because the Quran and Prophet's activity guided and were actually invovlved in society-building. Besides, therefore, certain general principles that lie enunciated in the Quran and certain Prophetic precepts, their actual handing of social situa tions is fraught with meaning for us. But the meaning is not that we should repeat that very situation now, which is an absurd task, but rather to draw lessons from this concerete historical pradigm."71

In formulating his Islamic methodology Rahman utilizes various principles from the rich tradition of Islamic epistemology and scholarship. Ijtihad being the foremost among these principles. He defines ijtihad to be: . . . the effort to understand the meaning of a relevant text or precedent in the past, containing a rule, and to alter that rule by extending or restricting or otherwise modifying it in such a manner that a new situation can be subsumed under it by extension. According to Fazalur Rahman ijtihad fulfils the role of contrasting the eternal Quranic principles with "freshly derived inspiration from revelations". Then the knowledge and wisdom gained from this process are to be used to tackle issues and problem facing contemporary society.

In spite of the fact that for nea rly a millennium 'official orthodoxy' preached that ijtihad was no longer necessary, there is no Quranic injunction or Prophetic tradition which justifies such a view. A strong argument could indeed be made that closing the gates of ijtihad, by anyone at any point in time,  is against the letter and spirit of Islamic teachings. Fazlur Rahman traces the anti-intellectualism of ulema to their rejection of the Mutazilite position with regard to reason. "Since the orthodoxy first rejected the position of the Mutazila on the role of reason, this anti-rational theological position affected their attitude to legal thought also and their standard works formally deny any role to reason in law-making."72

He goes on to point out that "the majority of theologians even to this day hold that in matters of belief, particularly in the case of existence of God and Mohammad's prophethood (and allied matters), authority alone is not sufficient and that these beliefs must be  grounded in reason. But in the field of law they teach Taqlid (i.e. unquestioning acceptance of authority) at least to the majority of Muslims and in practice to all Muslims."73

CONCLUSION

Modernism is often defined as a tendency in matters of religious belief to subordinate or harmonize tradition with modern thought. Modernism,  as opposed to medievalism, believes in the sovereignty of reason and  repudiates every authority that cannot stand the test of reason. Modern knowledge relies upon a scientific, rational and empirical understanding of reality with a view to gaining greater control of the forces of nature for the betterment of life in this world. The rationalist and positivist spirit that symbolizes modernity would in turn give rise to a new kind of society subscribing to norms and values that run counter to traditionalism. Rational criticism has laid open many areas h itherto closed to knowledge. With the increase in the knowledge of man, new concepts like those of evolutionsim and utilitarianism have gained ground. Whereas medieval man took a static view of things, modern man sees things in their development.

One product of the idea of evolution is the concept of progress. Modern man has faith in progress, just as he has faith in reason. It is assumed that in spite of retardation and temporary set-backs, man will go on from progress to further progress. Nothing can turn back the wheel of time. The future of things is more important than their past. Good and evil are judged on the basis of their relevance to progress. Anything that retards progress is evil, anything that furthers progress is good. Religion is also judged on the basis of  how far it leads to the progress of man.74

However, a distinction should be made between modernization and modernism or modernity. Modernization theory was a dominant analytical paradigm in American sociology for the e xplanation of the global process by which traditional societies achieved modernity. (1) Political modernization involves the development of key institutions - political parties, parliaments, franchise and secret ballots - which support participatory decision-making. (2) cultural modernization typically produces secularization and adherence to nationalistic ideologies. (3) Economic modernization, while distinct from industrialization, is associated with profound economic changes - an increasing division of labour, use of management techniques, improved technology and the growth of commericial facilities. (4) Social modernisation involves increasing literacy, urbanization and the decline of traditional authority. 

The modernization theory has been criticized on two grounds: (1) modernization is based on development in the West and is thus an ethnocentric model of development; (2) modernization does not necessarily lead to industrial growth and equal distribution of social benefits, since it is an e ssentially uneven process resulting in underdevelopment and dependency. Many attributes of modernization, like widespread literacy or modern medicine, have appeared, or have been adopted, in isolation from other attributes of the modern Western society. Hence modernization in some spheres of life may occur without resulting modernity.

Technological modernity intrinsic to western civilization, it is said, allows ultimately no alternative to Muslims or anyone clinging to pretechnical values. According to Daniel Pipes, "worldly success requires modernization; modernization requires Westernization; westernization requires secularism; secularism must be preceded by a willingness to emulate the West." The development gap made continuously wider by technological modernity places Muslims on the lower side of the gap, and presents them with the most difficult of all historical questions: can a traditional society achieve industrial development by importing technology which undermines its cultural heri tage, opens a breach in its tradition and undermines its world view?    However, very few Muslims believed that the appropriation of modern technology would necessitate a change in ideological commitment.

The desire for religious reconstruction and moral regeneration in the light of fundamental principles of Islam has, throughout their historical destiny, been deeply rooted among the Muslims -- radicals as well as traditionalists. Both the sections seem conscious of the fact that the only way for the Muslims of today, for an active and honourable participation in world affairs, is the reformation of positive lines of conduct suitable to contemporary needs in the light of social and moral guidance offered by Islam.75

In their attempts to resolve the problem of the relationship of reason to faith and of science to religion, Muslim reformers turned in effect to the theory of the "dual truth" advanced by Ibn Rushd, known in the West as Averroes [1126-1198), the great Arab ph ilosopher and free-thinker. The modernists were attracted, in particular, to the views of the Mu'tazilah: affirmation of God's unity and denial of all similarity between him and created things; reliance on human reason; emphasis on man's freedom; faith in man's ability to distinguish between good and bad; and insistence on man's responsibility to do good and fight against evil in private and public places.

Ibn Rushd held that religion and philosophy differed, if not in their content, at least in the expression of the common truth. The images of scriptural descriptions suitable for the common man are not taken to be the full truth by philosophers and conceptions of philosophers of perhaps the same truth are not comprehensible to the common man. Therefore it is best to keep them apart as two truths, and accept the position that something may be true theologically but not philosophically, and vice versa. Thus the realm of Grace was separated from the realm of Nature, the one for the theologian to pursue and the other for the scientist and the philosopher to know.