Chapter II - Muslim ideologues of the nineteenth century

* JAMAL AL-DIN AL-AFGHANI
* SHEIKH MOHAMMAD ABDUH
* SIR SAYYED AHMAD KHAN
*  RASHID RIDA
* ZIA GOKALP
* DR. MOHAMMAD IQBAL
* SAYYED AMIR ALI

* JAMAL AL-DIN AL-AFGHANI [1839-1897]
The idea that science and Islam are compatible is put forward in one form or another in the construction of all Muslim ideologues of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897), the pioneer of pan-Islamism,  was convinced that nothing but science and technology could eliminate economic and cultural backwardness.  Afghani objected to dividing science into European and Muslim. He said modern science as universal, transcending nations, cultures and religion. Afghani criticised the Muslim scholars for not seeing it that way by saying: "The strangest thing of all is that our ulema these days have divided science into two parts. One they call Muslim science, and one European science. Because of this they forbid others to teach some of the useful sciences."

Afghani was indignant that natural science was left out of the curriculum of Muslim educational establishments. He said: 'Those who imagine that they are saving religion by imposing a ban on some sciences and knowledge, are enemies of religion.' In an article, 'The Benefits of Study and Education", Afghani said that the misery in the Eastern countries was due to their ignoring "the noble and important role of the scientists". Afghani himself set a very high value on the public mission of the scientist. In December 1870, speaking at a conference on the progress of science and the crafts held in the New Istanbul University, Dar ul-funun, he described the scientist's work as missionary. He compared the scientist with a prophet, saying that prophecy is a craft (sanat) like medicine, philosophy, mathematics, and so on. The sole difference was that the prophet's verity was the fruit of inspiration, whereas scientific verity was the fruit of reason.

Whilst expounding the virtues and indispensability of science, Afghani was also at pains to stress that science needed another "science" which is more comprehehnsive which would enable man to know how to apply each field in its proper place. This field of knowledge is falsifa (philosophy) or hikam (wisdom) and only it can show man the human prerequisites (values such as what is more important, more fair, more just etc.) Afghani says: "It  is philosophy that  shows the man the proper road and makes man understandable to man."

To Afghani, Islam is a scientific religion and by this he did not mean to circumscribe Islam within mere science either.  He says: "Since it is known that religion is unquestionably the source of man's welfare, therefore if it is placed on firm foundations and sound bases, that religion will naturally become the complete source of total happiness and perfect tranquillity. Above all it will be the cause of material and moral progress. It will elevate the banner of civilization among its followers. It will cause those who are religious to attain all intellectual and spiritual perfection and to achieve good fortune in this world and the next."

He did not advocate a merely negative Islamic reaction against the West. He believed that the Muslim belief is a powerful political force. He called for a revitalization of Islam which would permit the Muslim world to absorb modern science. Afghani continued the cosmopolitan tradition of Islamic intellectuals in the course of a migrant life which took him from his native Iran to India, Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, France Russia and elsewhere.

 In the late nineteenth century, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan  from India and Sheikh Muhammad Abduh  from Egypt recommended reformation of Islamic society along similar lines though from slightly different perspectives. Syed Ahmad Khan was in favor of showing that modern science and technology were in confromity with the articles of Islamic faith. Muhammad Abduh' rulings as the Chief Mufti of Egypt, were influenced by the principle of public interest (maslaha). He observed: "If a ruling has become the cause of harm which it did not cause before, then we must change it according to the prevailing conditions."  

SHEIKH MOHAMMAD ABDUH [1849-1905]
Traditional Islam, Sheikh Mohammad Abduh argued, faced serious challenge by the modern, rational and scientific thought. But he did not believe that the faith of Islam in its pure and permanent core of norms clashed with science. Instead he asserted that the faith and scientific reason operate at different levels. The real Islam, he maintained: "had simple doctrinal structure: it consisted of certain beliefs about the greatest questions of human life, and certain general principles of human conduct. To enable us to reach these beliefs and embody them in our lives both reason and revelation are essential. They neither possess separate spheres nor conflict with each other in the same sphere…"1

Sheikh mohammad Abduh's aim was to interpret the Islamic law in such a way as to free it from the traditional interpretations and prove that Islam and modern Western civilization were compatible. Abduh was convinced of the supremacy of human reason. Religion merely supplements and aids reason. Reason sits in judgment on religion. Islam is, above all, the religion of reason and all its doctrines can be logically and rationally demonstrated.

Sheikh Abduh was thus the chief exponent of what has been termed as the "Two-Book" school of thought which, though it basically holds the unity of God inseparable from the unity of truth, recognizes two open ways to it: the way of revelation and that of natural science. He contended that since God's purpose in marking His revelation was to promote human welfare, a true interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah should essentially be the one which best fulfils this purpose. He himself took the lead in this direction. As the Chief Mufti of Egypt, he issued fatwas ranging from the questions of law to those of social morality and employed the same measure of innovation and rationality in his interpretations, assessments and judgements. In matters of Islamic law, which governed Muslim family relationships, tirual duties, and personal conduct, Abduh tried to break trhough the rigidities of scholastic interpretation and to promote considerations of equity, welfare, and common sense, even if this occasionally meant disregarding the literal texts of the Quran.

Abduh's, rationalism is directed against inert traditional thinking and blind observance of the medieval interpretation of Islam. Also. It is designed to vindicate and defend religion, to adapt it to the new times, and to reconcile it with science. It would be a mistake to think, however, that Abduh and other Muslim reformers confine themselves exclusively to justifying and modernizing religion. Despite the narrowness of their concepts they are sincerely interested in eliminating the obstacles to the development of science and technology essential for the revival of the Muslim peoples and for economic and cultural progress. What they want, however, is to use scientific achievements without heed of the world outlook implicit in science.

Abdu deplored the blind acceptance of traditional doctines and customs and asserted that a return to the pristiine faith of the earliest age of Islam not only would restore the Muslims' spiritual vitality but would provide an enlightened criterion for the assimilation of modern scientific culture.

SIR SAYYED AHMAD KHAN [1817-1898]
The pioneer of Indian Muslim reform, Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan, basically subscribed to the same ideas of Islamic reform as Sheikh Abduh. Both agreed to the point of necessity to harmonize Islam with modern science and rationalism. Sir Sayyed, however, viewed revelation by the criterion of its conformity to Nature. To him, Islam was the religion of most akin to Nature. Reason and 'conformity to Nature' according to Sir Sayyed was the essence of Islam.

His main argument was that the Quran was the word of God and the nature was the work of God; a disparity between the two was unthinkable. According to him, Wahy (revelation) and reason are identical. The latter operates in man's scientific investigations as much as in his concept of deity, his distinction between good and evil, his views on divine judgment and retribution, and his belief in life after death. For him reason alone is the right instrument of judging truth. Although Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan accepts the term Wahy but does not attach to it any special significance; it is mere inspiration in a most highly developed state: prophethood, in other words, was a natural faculty, and not a gift through the grace of God as the orthodox Muslims believe. As a corollary he puts forward the view that revelation was not something external brought to a prophet by an angel, as was generally believed, but a natural phenomenon like other human faculties.

Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan rejects the Fiqh totally. He says that in the past religiously mined scholars thought that, as far as possible, every thing should be done with the support of some religious authority. Therefore, when any  problem arose, they searched for some religious sanction and with the help of far-fetched arguments and interpretations, they placed it under some religious ruling or subjected it to some general principle laid down by themselves. The sayings and arguments of those religious scholars began to be collected and assumed the shape of Fiqh and books relating to the principles of Fiqh.

Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan lays stress on the fact that every age should have a living Mujtahid whom all the problems should be referred to. He says that it is a great error on the part of the Ahlussnah Wal Jama'aah to hold the opinon that Ijtihad has come to an end and Mujtahids have become non-existent. This doctrine has done immese harm to the Muslims and should now be abandoned. We should develop a spirit of enquiry and research. Life in every age brings new problems and new needs. If we do not have living Mujtahids, how can we ask the dead Mujtahids about needs and problems which had no existence in their times.

Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan goes on to stress that worldly affairs should not be dragged into the province of religion, because what is religious is unchangeable, while worldly matters keep on changing. The Quran, he adds, contains less than five hundred verses bearing on worldly affairs. In any case, the fact that the Quran mentions a few worldly matters constitutes no argument that worldly affairs are included in the religion.

Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan had sought to show that Islam was no barrier to scientific inquiry and social progress. He was the first thinker, after the 1857 Muslim revolt against the British colonialists, to realize this pathetic condition of the Muslims. He attributed this condition to three causes: (1) the superstitious beliefs and practices that had entered Indian Islam (2) lack of emphasis on the assimilative and universal character of Islam and (3) the aversion of the Muslims to Western education. Against the opposition of the Ulama, who declared him as a heretic,  Sayyed Ahmad Khan established the Anglo-Muhammadan College at Aligarh, the nucleus of the Muslim University of Aligarh, which created a new Muslim generation who believed in Islam and also favored modern trends. In his series of articles published in the "Tahzibul Akhlaq" and public speeches, he boldly spoke against the general and indiscriminate practice of polygamy, for modification of the doctrine of riba (interest) and against some punishments like stoning to death and cutting off of hands. He  also explained the phenomenon of revelation and restricted Quran and Sunnah to devotional matters. In his opinion religious injunctions relating to social, economic and cultural matters were applicable to primitive societies.

RASHID RIDA [1865-1935]
Rashid Rida, a Syrian scholar and the disciple of  Mohammad Abduh, also argues in favour of resoning when he says that the Quran taught its followers to ask for arguments and our virtuous ancestors followed the same course. Rashid Rida emphasizes the need for going back to the spirit of Islamic laws and for a knowledge of the principles on which they are founded. He says that many people know what is lawful and what is unlawful but they do not know why a particular act has been declared unlawful. To act on laws it is necessary to understand the reasons lying behind them and to know what purposes or general interests, they serve. Today people know Ahkam (injunctions) without knowing the Hikmah (wisdom) behind them. Yet it was essentially the knowledge of Hikma behind the laws which enabled the companions of the prophet to rule over large territories and administer them in the best interests of the people.2  

Rashid Rida pleads for Ijtihad by stressing that Islam as a religion is based on reason and the Islamic Sharia is founded on the basis of Ijtihad. Without Ijtihad, it is difficult to claim that Islam is an eternal religion. Therefore, if any person stands in the way of Ijtihad or tries to prevent it, he is really undermining the basis of Islam and its Sharia and destroying its distinctiveness from other religions. "What a henious crime is being committed, then, by these ignorant persons who call themselves the Ulema of Islam."3 

Rashid Rida  says that Islam had given us perfect liberty to order the affairs of our life. Barring a few restrictions laid down in the Quran and the Sunnah, the entire field of human affairs was left open, only it was stipulated that matters would be decided through shura or consultations. But we put ourselves under unnecessary restrictions which were not sanctioned by religion and it was thought in later ages, that in defending these artificial restrictions, we are defending our religion. This circumscribed our freedom of action and disabled us from marching with times or borrowing useful institutions and laws from other  nations.4 

He believed that the backwardness of the Muslim countries resulted from a neglect of the true principles of Islam.  He believed that these principles could be found in the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed and in the practices of the first generation of Muslims, before corruption began to spread among the religious practices of the faithful. He was convinced that Islam, as a body of teachings correctly understood, contained all the principles necessary for happiness in this world and the hereafter, and that positive effort to improve the material basis of the community was the essence of Islam.

ZIA GOKALP [1876-1924]
Zia Gokalp, who has been considered as the most influential spiritual founder of Turkish nationalism, affirmed that Islam had been equipped with an adequate framework to accommodate and adapt to morphological changes in time and space. He says that the injunctions of the Quran (nass or text) stay eternal and unchangeable while 'urf' or the collective ideas and ijma --the consensus of the scholars -- allow enough room for the dogma to adapt itself to changing necessities of life. According to Gokalp, the Islamic law has a two-fold source: the traditional Shariah and the Social Shariah. The Social Shariah is continually changing in accordance with social evolution. The stagnation of the world of Islam is due to the failure of the Muslims to relate the 'nass' to the 'urf' by means of ijtihad. Gokalp has no doubt that Islam is the only religion that exhorts change.

He found Quranic sanction for the secular authorities to assume legislative functions in Islam in the verse: 'Obey God and the Prophet, and those in authority among you.' (IV:59) Those 'in authority' are surely to exercise their authority in the secular-mundane sphere. For this differentiation, he demanded the transfer of the judiciary functions of the Sheikh al Islam to the legislature and urged that the office of Sheikh al Islam should be more of a scholar, devoid of political authority. Another of his demands was the abolition of the Ministry of Awkaf and a ban on the various Dervish orders who had misused the pious endowments for self-perpetuation and the propagation of their exaggerated belief in fatalism. Gokalp also advocated the modernization of Muslim family life and urged the complete abandonment of purdah and the unqualified recognition of equality of the sexes.

Ziya Gokalp was among the earliest public figures in Turkey to champion a purely secular state which was later established by Mustafa Kemal. "In the first place, in a modern state, the right to legislate and to administer directly belongs to the people. No office, no tradition and no other right can restrict and limit this right. In the second place, all members of the modern nation, regardless of their relgious afficilation, are regarded as equal to reach other in every respect. In short, all provisions existing in our laws that are contrary to liberty, equality and justice and all traces of theocracy and clericialism should be commpletely eliminated."5

DR. MOHAMMAD IQBAL [1897 -1938]
The same struggle at an intellectual level was pursued by Muhammad Iqbal during the 1930s in the Indian subcontinent. Iqbal's greatest contribution lay in his attempts to understand the nature and thrust of global forces as manifested in Western cultural and intellectual dominance. His response was both intellectual and institutional. He argued that, "the claim of present generations of Muslim liberals to interpret the foundational legal principles, in the light of their own experi­ence and the altered conditions of modern life is perfectly justi­fied.  The teachings of the Quran that life is a process of pro­gressive creation necessitates that each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of its predecessors, should be permit­ted to solve its own prob­lems.  A false reverence of past his­tory  and its artificial resurrec­tion  constitute no remedy for a people's decay. The verdict of history is that  worn out ideas  have never risen to power  among a people who have worn them out."6 

Iqbal believed that there are two spheres of Islam; one is "ibadaat" which is based on the religious obligations (arkan-i- deen) - these do not re­quire any change; the other sphere is that of "muamelaat" (social dealings) which is subject to the law of change. He says: "The Shariah values (ahkam) resulting from this ap­plication (for example, rules referring to penalties for crimes) are in a sense specific to that people; and since their observance is not an end itself they cannot be strictly enforced in future gen­erations."

Iqbal thought that both the institutions of ijma (overall consensus of the community) and ijtihad (creative judgment) could be lodged in a Muslim assembly. If such an assembly were to develop its own knowledge and expertise in Islamic law, there was no need for the ulama to exercise their veto on the deliberations of the assembly. "The primary source of the law of Islam is the Quran. The Quran how­ever, is not the legal code. Its main purpose is to awaken in man the higher consciousness  of his relation with God and the universe. The principle of movement in Islam is ijtihad - effort to form an in­dependent opinion. The transfer of power of ijti­had to a Muslim legislative assembly which, in view of the growth of the opposing sects is the only possible form  ijma can take in modern times, will secure contributions to legal discus­sions from laymen who happen to possess a keen insight into af­fairs. The closing of the door of ijti­had is a pure fiction sug­gested partly by the crystallization of legal thought in Islam and partly by intellectual laziness which, especially in the period of spiritual decay turns great thinkers into idols."7

Iqbal pleaded that equiped with penetrative throught and fresh experience the world of Islam should courageously proceed to the work of reconstruction before them. But he was aware that this work of reconstruction,  has a far more serious aspect than mere adjustment in modern conditions life.  He was of the view that "humanity needs three things today - a spiritual interpretation of the universe, spiritual emancipation of the individual, and basic principles of a universal import directng the evolution of human society on a spiritual basis. Modern Europe, has no doubt, built idealistic systems on these lines, but experience shows that truth revealed through pure reason is incapable of bringing that fire of living conviction which personal revelation alone can bring. This is the reason why pure thought has so little influenced men while religion has always elevated indivuals, and transformed whole societies."8 

SAYYED AMIR ALI [1849-1928]
Sayyed Amir Ali, an eminent Indian scholar, was of the view that the plight that has fallen on the Muslims is due to the doctine which has prohibited the exercise of individual judgment (Ijtihad) and the Muslim clergy has closed the of Ijtihad for its own interests. He says: "The present stagnation of the Musulman communities is principally due to the notion which has fixed itself on the minds of the generality of Moslems that the right to exercise private judgment ceased with the early legists. The Prophet had consecrated reason as the highest and noblest function of the human intellect. Our schoolmen and their followers have made its exercise a sin and a crime."9

He argued: "The lives and conduct of a large number of Moslems of the present day are governed less by the precepts and teachings of the Master (God) and more by the theories and opinions of the Mujadids and Imams who,.....obligious to the universility of the Master's teachings, unassisted by his spirit and devoid of his inspiration, have adapted his utterances to their own limited notions of human needs and human progress.  They mixed up the temporary with the permanent, the universal with the particular. In the Western world, the Reformation was ushered in by the Renaissance and the progress of Europe commenced when it threw off the shackles of Ecclesiasticism. In Islam also, enlightenment must precede reform and before there can be a renovation of religious life, the mind must first escape from the bondage, centuries of literal interpretation and the doctrine of conformity have imposed upon it."10

Sayyed Amir Ali called for reformation in Islam. He advocated the philosophy of Mutazilites by saying "Under them rationalism acquired a predominance such as it has not gained perhaps even in modern times in European countries. The idea of these philosophers was the same as has gained ground in modern times owing to the extension of natural science. But they were, in fact, the exponents of the doctrine of Ta'lil or agnosticism.  It appears, therefore that the Islam of Muhammad contains nothing in itself which bars the progress or the intellectual develpopment of humanity."11

Sayyed Amir Ali believes that the ordinances and injunctions of the prophet were of  a temporary nature and that the prophet never intended them to be eternally binding on the Muslims. The prophet relied more on moral persuasion. "...to suppose that the greatest Reformer the world has ever produced, the greatest upholder of the sovereignty of reason, ever contemplated that those injuctions which were called forth by the passing necessities of a semi-civilised people should become immutable, is doing an injustice to the Prophet of Islam," he suggested.12

Sayyed Amir Ali accuses the jurists and theologians of having misinterpreted the message of Islam to satisfy their own whimsicalities or the capricious dictates of the Caliphs and Sultans whose obsequious servants they were
.