islamic renaissance-the real task ahead

8/12/2019 Islamic Renaissance-The Real Task Ahead

1/61

1

Islamic Renaissance The real Task Ahead

Introduction

For quite some time now, the global Muslim ummah has been experiencing anincreasing sense of discontent. Today, many believe that the times are ripe for a majorstep forward in the ongoing movement for Islams renewal and revival. ! wide varietyof practical efforts in that direction are already underway in Muslim communitiesacross the globe. "espite their considerable #eal and fervor, however, there is littleagreement regarding the most effective and appropriate course of action. In most cases,this disagreement or lac$ of coherence represents a state of confusion caused by ageneral failure to identify the modern predicament of religion. %ome say that the mainproblem is our ignorance of the Islamic tradition& others argue that it is our politicalfragmentation and military wea$ness& still others claim that it is the corruption of ourrulers and the evil designs of the '% (mpire. %ince contemporary Muslims do not agreeon the nature of the fundamental challenge that Islam is facing, it is no surprise thatthey differ so much about the practical steps needed to address it. Their efforts,therefore, are scattered and dispersed in all sorts of directions, producing a flurry ofactivity but resulting in little overall progress.

)learly, no treatment will benefit the sic$ ummah unless it is based on an accuratediagnosis of her condition. In his treatise on *Islamic +enaissance, the -a$istani scholarand activist "r. Israr !hmad attempted to do just that. e sought to identify theessential nature of the modern predicament of religion/or, what amounts to the samething/the most fundamental challenge that Muslims are facing in the modern world.In writing this treatise, "r. Israr !hmad wanted to single out the principal cause of thewidespread Muslim malaise in the face of modernity and of the failure of modernIslamic movements to alleviate that malaise. In his interpretation of the Muslimencounter with 0estern modernity, "r. Israr !hmad attempted to address some of themost critical questions being faced by contemporary Muslims1 0hy is it that sincereand well2organi#ed efforts to face the challenges of modernity have met with abjectfailure or with only limited success3 0hat is it that the modern Islamic movementshave neglected to ta$e into account3 !t exactly what point did these efforts start to go

awry3 0hat do we need to do in order to formulate authentic and effective Islamicresponses to the challenges posed by modernity3 0here should we go from here3

In addressing these questions, "r. Israr !hmad attempted to ta$e stoc$ of what hadalready been accomplished by previous generations of Muslim scholars and activists, toisolate the inadequacies of the ongoing efforts by contemporary Islamic movements,and to develop a concrete plan of action regarding what needed to be done in the presentas well as in the foreseeable future. 4eing cogni#ant of the various groups,organi#ations, and movements that were actively pursuing the goal of Islams*renaissance in different parts of the Muslim world, he arrived at the conclusion thatsomething very basic and fundamental was missing in their efforts. e contended thatMuslims scholars and activists ought to disregard the leaves and the branches and,instead, focus their energies on dealing with what constituted the root of the modernpredicament of religion. e argued that no real progress would be achieved unlessadequate effort and attention were directed at underta$ing what he called *the real

tas$.

About the Treatise

The purpose of this web2based commentary on *Islamic +enaissance is to ma$e thearguments of the original treatise as accessible as possible to a wide range of audience.In underta$ing this project, we have been motivated by our conviction that *Islamic+enaissance is a highly significant and rewarding text for several reasons.

First, the contents of *Islamic +enaissance are as relevant to the globalMuslim ummah today as they were in 5678. The passage of time has failed to ma$e thistreatise either obsolete or redundant. In fact, a case can be made that the events andtrends of the last half2a2century have rendered this treatise increasingly morerelevant, even urgent.

%econd, *Islamic +enaissance is one of the most enduring statements of "r. Israr


2/61

2!hmads thought. e wrote this treatise at the relatively young age of thirty2six, anddespite the fact that his thin$ing on many issues changed during the later part of hiscareer, he continued to express his confidence in the arguments of*Islamic +enaissance until the very end of his life.

Third, *Islamic +enaissance presents many of "r. Israr !hmads most important ideas

in a relatively condensed form& a number of ideas that he developed more fully in thelater part of his career can already be found in their initial, germinal stages in thepages of this treaties.

Finally, *Islamic +enaissance is probably the most valuable of "r. Israr !hmadsnumerous contributions. 0hile many of his views can be challenged and debated, thereis little doubt that this particular treatise offers some of his most compelling ideas.

About the "Renaissance" of Islam

0hat is the main theme of *Islamic +enaissance1 The +eal Tas$ !head3 !s the titlesuggests, the central assumption of this treatise is that there is an urgent need for

bringing about a state of affairs that the author refers to as the *renaissance of Islam,while its main argument concerns the practical steps that must be underta$en in orderto prepare the way towards the reali#ation of that goal.

The meaning of the word *renaissance, however, is not immediately obvious.The word is considerably ambiguous and potentially misleading. For this reason, wemust begin by clarifying the sense of *renaissance that "r. Israr !hmad seemed tohave in mind.

(tymologically, the word *renaissance comes from a 9atin word that denotes thenotion of being *born again :in the religious or spiritual sense;. In common usage, theterm *+enaissance refers to the (uropean experience of *re2discovering classical$nowledge, beginning in the fourteenth century, that produced a renewed flowering of

science and culture, bringing the so2called *dar$ ages to an end. This particularmeaning of *+enaissance has been dated to 5, indicating the retrospective natureof the historical judgment involved in the modern definition of *+enaissance.

?iven the above bac$ground, the phrase *Islamic +enaissance in the title of "r. Israr!hmad@s treatise may lead some readers to assume that he is proposing for the Islamicworld something along the lines of what happened in (urope during the fourteenth andfifteenth centuries. %ome readers may also assume that the author is examining thepredicament of Islam and Muslims primarily through the lens of 0estern self2understanding. It is important to point out that neither assumption is very helpful inrevealing the authors intention.

The original phrase in the title is Anash@at2e saniya,A which is an 'rduB-ersian form ofwhat is essentially an !rabic phrase. 0hile this has been rendered into (nglish as*renaissance, we should note that terms li$e *rebirth, *second birth, and

*resurgence could also function as more or less valid substitutes. ?iven the authorsintellectual bac$ground, it would not be too far2fetched to suggest that he may havederived both the concept and the phrase from the text of the oly Curan, rather thanfrom (uropean history.

The !rabic word Anash@ahA denotes such phenomena as rising, emerging, being born,coming into existence, cropping up, proceeding, springing forth, growing, developing,etc. This word obviously has organic, and even biological, connotations, and this is atleast partly how the oly Curan employs it. The Islamic %cripture repeatedly directsthe readers attention to the way in which dead vegetations come to life each spring,using this otherwise mundane observation as an argument for its claim that the entirehumanity will experience resurrection at the end of time. To drive this point home, theoly Curan uses a variety of words and expressions& these include Aal2nash@at al2ulaA todenote the original creation, and Aal2nash@at al2a$hiraA as well as Aal2nash@at al2u$hraA torefer to the *re2birth or *re2creation that ?od has promised for each individual.

It can be readily seen that even though Anash@at2e saniyaA and *renaissance are


3/61

3practically synonymous, they do not share the same connotations because therespective cultural and etymological bac$grounds of the two terms are significantlydifferent. "espite their overlapping meanings, these terms can be seen as representingessentially independent concepts& consequently, the notion of a *rebirth of Islam wouldhave been equally meaningful even if there had been no such thing as the (uropean+enaissance. It is important to note in this context that the phrase containsadditional shades of meaning that are not found in the French and (nglish word

*renaissance, including, for example, the idea of resurgence or rising up.Furthermore, the usual !rabic term for cultural flowering :which is the basic sense of*renaissance; is an altogether different word/*nahdah. !s a modern term, *nahdahrefers to the revival of literary and cultural activities in (gypt, 9ebanon, and %yriathat too$ place between mid2nineteenth century and 0orld 0ar I. This suggests thatthe semantic field of Anash@at2e saniyaA is broader than that of either *nahdah or theusual, 0estern sense of *renaissance.

0hat did the author himself mean by the phrase Anash@at2e saniyaA/rendered here as*renaissance3 Dowhere in this treatise did he ma$e any attempt to define or explainthe significance of the term *Islamic +enaissance. Eet, its meaning was very clear inhis own mind. (lsewhere, "r. Israr !hmad has identified the rise of Islam during thelife2time of -rophet Muhammad :%!0; and the +ightly ?uided )aliphs :+; by explicitlyreferring to the Curanic phrase Aal2nash@at al2ulaA :*the first birth;. It is evident from

his writings and speeches that he anticipated a second period of Islams rise in the nearor distant future. It would have been completely natural, in this context, to identifythis second period of Islams rise as a *rebirth or *renaissance.

In writing *Islamic +enaissance, "r. Israr !hmad was addressing an audiencethat was already familiar with the concept in question and did not need any extensiveexplanation. !s mentioned above, this treatise first appeared in the monthly 'rdujournal *Mithaq, and it is relevant to note that the readership of this journal consistedlargely of individuals who were already inspired by the idea of Islams revival andresurgence/particularly under the influence of the amaGat2e Islami/but had becomedisillusioned with the existing options for wor$ing towards that goal. Moreover, themeaning of a *rebirth or *resurgence of Islam was not un$nown among the educatedsegments of Muslim societies in the late 567>s. This was partly due to the nationalliberation movements that were leading to the decoloni#ation of the Islamic world aswell as the international initiatives of that period that were aimed at fostering unity

among Muslim nations, and partly due to the growing influence of revivalistmovements li$e the amaGat2e Islami and al2I$hwan al2Muslimun. In fact, the discourseof Islamic revival, rebirth, resurgence, or *renaissance has been around at least sincethe late2nineteenth century. This discourse had originated most forcefully in thepassion of a single individual, i.e., %ayyid amal al2"in al2!fghani :5


4/61

4of spiritual, moral, and social decline or stagnation. !s is well $nown, such efforts havebeen initiated countless times throughout Muslim history and, ta$en together, theyconstitute an unbro$en tradition of religious devotion and service.

In this bac$ground, the phrase *renaissance of Islam suggests the need for efforts thatare essentially along the same lines as those of the numerous movements for renewal,reform, and revival that were underta$en in the past. Eet, the fact remains that this

particular usage is unprecedented in premodern Muslim history& furthermore, theconcept of *rebirth or *second birth evo$es a far more ambitious goal than what isgenerally implied in the three traditional terms. !s a result, the *renaissance of Islamseems to refer to a conception that includes the essential elements of renewal, reform,and revival/as traditionally understood/but is also much more comprehensive andfar2reaching, even exceptional, in its scope and implications. Indeed, the argument of*Islamic +enaissance suggests that the modern challenges being faced by Islam todayare of an entirely different nature than anything it had faced in the past. This impliesthat we must be prepared to ta$e unprecedented steps to meet these challenges, forunusual problems cannot be addressed by repeating the usual solutions. %ince thechallenges are extraordinary, so should be the responses. For this reason, a *rebirth isan appropriate metaphor, since it serves to emphasi#e that renewal, reform, andrevival of an extraordinary $ind is needed if Islam is to meet the challenges it is facing

About the Commentary

The commentary being presented here is an attempt to explain the contents of AIslamic+enaissanceA and to expand upon their significance. The need to produce a commentaryli$e this arose due to a number of factors. To begin with, while the logical structure of*Islamic +enaissance is simple and elegant, the text offers certain obstacles that ma$eits arguments difficult to apprehend. For instance, the text of *Islamic +enaissance isvery concise with minimum repetition. The author ma$es no effort to present detailedevidence, cite other scholars, or to periodically recapitulate his position. -art of thedifficulty stems from the fact that "r. Israr !hmad was more of an orator bytemperament than a writer, let alone an academician. !s such, he was not used tospelling out his thoughts on paper in the thorough and detailed manner that we expectfrom professional scholars. Instead, much of his written legacy is in the form of brief buthighly dense essays that many lay readers find uninviting and even impenetrable. Tocompensate for the brevity and density of his essays, "r. Israr !hmad would oftenelaborate upon his own writings in his widely2attended lectures and publicpresentations. e was an accomplished performer of the oral discourse and a virtuoso inthe art of didactic speech. !s a result, the numerous audio and video recordings of hisspeeches are significantly easier to follow, and much more popular, than his relativelyfew writings. In effect, the full import of his essays remains relatively difficult to graspwithout the help of his own elaborations.

9i$e "r. Israr !hmad@s other writings, the brevity and compactness of *Islamic+enaissance present a serious challenge to readers who are not already familiar withhis thought. The sympathetic reader finds it difficult to fully appreciate his argumentswithout repeated analytical readings of the text& such readings require a high level ofinterpretive s$ill that many of them do not possess. n the other hand, the criticalreader is li$ely to object that the s$etchy evidence given in the text does not support the

authors bold contentions. %ince "r. Israr !hmad attempts to ma$e an argument in thistreatise that virtually spans the globe and covers five hundred years of history, theterseness of his writing style forces him to generali#e and oversimplify in a way that isunacceptable in contemporary scholarship. For instance, his critique of what he calls*0estern thought lac$s supporting evidence& his understanding of the motives ofcolonial policies is based almost entirely on the case of the 4ritish in India& he discussesseveral varieties of Muslim initiatives and movements but does not provide detailedevidence or explain exactly how he arrived at his judgments. From an academicviewpoint, perhaps the most significant wea$ness of this treatise is the authors failureto consider alternative viewpoints and possible objections to his own contentions. Theresulting lac$ of nuance ma$es the treatise an easy target for criticism, which, in turn,renders the value of his contribution even less li$ely to be appreciated.

In this context, our commentary is meant to provide some of the tools necessary forfacilitating the readers full engagement with the authors arguments. %pecifically, thecommentary is intended to accomplish the following1 :5; to interpret the authorsmeaning in a reader2friendly style that is more suitable for a broad range of audience&


5/61

5:J; to place some of his propositions in their respective socio2historical contexts& :H; tointroduce certain nuances and qualifications in order to refine and clarify the authorsmeaning& :=; to add certain details and other references for a deeper and richerappreciation of his arguments& :K; to address some of the questions and criticisms thatmay arise due to the brevity of the original text& and :7; to augment the authorspresentation by citing relevant developments that have ta$en place since the treatisewas first published.

It is important to clarify that our commentary is not merely exegetical. 0e haveunderta$en not only to explain "r. Israr !hmad@s intended meanings, but to also extendtheir significance and implications beyond the relatively limited framewor$ of histreatise. In other words, we did not restrict the scope of the commentary to anexplanation of the authors own thin$ing, but, in addition to that basic tas$, we havealso attempted to elucidate the subject matter from a number of additional perspectivesthat the author did not ta$e into account. )onsequently, this commentary should beseen as an *interpretation that reflects not only the mind of the original author butalso, to a significant degree, the mind of the commentator. 0hether our attempt atexpanding the scope of the discussion is justified, and to what extent, is for the readers todecide.

0hile the commentary adds some detail and nuance to the original text, it is not

intended to substitute first2hand research. +eaders should not ta$e the interpretationgiven here as the absolute final word on the significance and implications ofthe treatise, but only as a useful starting point. Indeed, *Islamic +enaissance is a textthat does not present itself as the last word on the topic& instead, it invites the readers/both explicitly and implicitly/to embar$ upon a life2long journey of inquiry andappropriate action. 0e encourage the readers to use our interpretation of *Islamic+enaissance as a roadmap that may help them navigate an unfamiliar terrain, andnot as a final destination to be reached.

The Pervasive Ascendancy of Western Thought

The present age can be justifiably described as the age of thepredominance of Western thought and philosophy as well as of Western

arts and sciences. In this age, Western ideas and theories, along withWestern conceptions regarding the universe and the human being, havecome to dominate the entire globe. Ever since their origin in Europeroughly two hundred years ago, these ideas and conceptions have beencontinually growing and strengthening. egardless of the number ofnation!states or political blocs in which the contemporary world isdivided, it is more or less the same style of thin"ing#or the same pointof view#that prevails all over the world. $isregarding a few superficialand trivial differences, it is the same cultural currency that holds valueacross national, ideological, and societal boundaries. While we dosometimes encounter alternative perspectives or viewpoints, thecombined significance of these is no more than that of a peripheral trail

compared to the central highway of human civili%ation. In both the Eastand the West, the mindset of the ruling and leading classes#those whocontrol the collective affairs of their respective societies#seems to havebeen dyed in e&actly the same hue. The pervasive ascendancy ofWestern thought and culture has become so formidable that even anti!Western movements in different parts of the world have not been able toremain completely free of its influence. 'pon closer e&amination, theperspective of the social forces struggling to resist the West turns out tobe (uite Western itself.

Commentary

"r. Israr !hmad begins his treatise by ma$ing an observation1 ver the last two


6/61

6hundred years or so, the intellectual and cultural products of *the 0est have beenwidely internali#ed by societies across the globe, leading to an unmista$ablehomogeni#ation. 0herever we travel on earth, we are li$ely to encounter very similarideas, assumptions, and ways of living. 0hile human societies have been substantiallydifferent from each other during most of history, their diversity has rapidly anduncharacteristically diminished in recent centuries. This intellectual and culturalhomogeni#ation has been the result of an increasing/and ongoing/assimilation of

peoples of diverse cultures and bac$grounds into 0estern modes of thin$ing and acting.

0estern influences are channeled through 0estern intellectual and cultural products&these products can be grouped into two main types1 *thought and philosophy on theone hand, *arts and sciences on the other. The former denotes theories, ideas,conceptions, terminology, and style of expression& the latter denotes natural and socialsciences, as well as what the author calls *funun. This word usually means *arts butit can also be translated as *techniques. If the author means the former, he is referringto poetry, music, literature, painting, architecture, and so on. If he means the latter, heis referring to what is called *technology, as well as the processes and procedures usedfor organi#ing and motivating human beings both individually and in groups.

In this first section, "r. Israr !hmad contends that the $ind of *thought andphilosophy and the $ind of *arts and sciences that have come to dominate the world

during the last two hundred years can justifiably be called *0estern. This does notmean that every idea or every technique that is in ascendancy today was literally bornin the geographical region called *the 0estern hemisphere. Instead, the author isarguing that modern ideas and modern techniques developed in any part of the worldmay be called *0estern insofar as they have been made possible by the unique style ofthin$ing, or point of view, which too$ shape in 0estern (urope about two centuries ago.!s used by "r. Israr !hmad in this treatise, the adjective *0estern has at least twomeanings1 first, it refers to the societies of 0estern (urope and their overseasextensions, including Dorth !merica and !ustralia& and second, it refers to a specificperspective, an orientation, or an attitude that is best rendered as *modern.(lsewhere, he uses the words *modern and *0estern interchangeably.

In (nglish, the nouns *modernity and *modernism, as well as the adjectives*modern and *modernist, are often used as virtual synonyms& in some contexts,however, these terms are sharply distinguished. (ven though "r. Israr !hmad does not

ma$e these distinctions in *Islamic +enaissance, it is nevertheless important tounderstand their significance. The term modernism denotes the particular mindsetthat emerged in 0estern (urope from seventeenth2century onwards, essentially as theresult of the scientific discoveries of ?alileo and Dewton and the philosophy of "escartes.n the other hand, the term modernity is most often used for those social, political, andeconomic conditions that shaped, and were in turn shaped by, the modern worldview.:%ee Cuotes and Insights for definitions of modernism and modernity.;

In simpler language, we may say that our contemporary age has two sides1 anintellectual side called modernism, and a structural side called modernity. 0hen "r.Israr !hmad uses the words *0estern or *modern, the context is usually a sufficientguide for the reader to determine whether he is referring to modernism as a mindset orto modernity as a set of objective conditions.

!s we shall see throughout this treatise, "r. Israr !hmads main concern is not so muchwith the objective, structural conditions of modernity as with the attitudes andassumptions, i.e., the worldview, of modernism. e sees *0estern thought andphilosophy as being logically prior to the social, political, and economic conditions thatare associated with the phenomenon of modernity. These latter conditions includeindustriali#ation, urbani#ation, capitalism, secular democracy, bureaucrati#ation, etc.The author of *Islamic +enaissance seems to assume that modernity is a product ofmodernism. 0hile this is not incorrect, it is important to remember that the reverse isalso true, i.e., the objective conditions of modernity are responsible for nurturing andsustaining the attitudes and assumptions $nown as modernism. In other words, there isa dialectical relationship between modernism as an intellectual and cultural conditionon the one hand, and modernity as a set of social, political, and economic condition onthe other hand. For all practical purposes, therefore, the two sides of our contemporaryage are inseparable. This ma$es the distinction between modernity and modernismsomewhat irrelevant in most contexts.

nce we understand exactly what he is tal$ing about, "r. Israr !hmads observationcan be appreciated as a relatively uncontroversial one. e is arguing that a unique


7/61

7style of thin$ing, or a specific point of view, started to ta$e shape at a particular pointin time and in a particular part of the world& and that, during the last two hundredyears, it has grown and become increasingly dominant all over the world. In thiscontext, his use of the phrases *style of thin$ing and *point of view is highlysignificant. (ven though he does not use this term, what he most probably means is aworldview. ad "r. Israr !hmad employed the term worldview, his entire argument inthis treatise would have been much more clear and convincing. 4e that as it may, a

careful and sympathetic reader of *Islamic +enaissance can still discern that thephrases *style of thin$ing and *point of view do not refer to any specific theory orphilosophy but to something deeper and more general than any of our beliefs, thoughts,or ideas. They refer to the mostly subconscious matrix of our attitudes and assumptions,otherwise $nown as worldview. :%ee Cuotes and Insights for definitions of worldview.;

It is important to notice the authors implicit suggestion that the modern *style ofthin$ing or *point of view is a unique phenomenon because it is unprecedented inhistory. Do other society in the history of human civili#ation has ever adopted thisparticular set of attitudes and assumptions as its dominant worldview. To be sure,0estern (urope did not invent this unique viewpoint out of nothing& there aretraceable influences from a variety of other cultures and societies, including Islamicones. Devertheless, because this style of thin$ing first came of age in *the 0est, wemay, for the sa$e of convenience, refer to it as *0estern in its origin. For all practical

purposes, however, it is best to call it *modern because of its virtual universality.To summari#e, "r. Israr !hmad is arguing that *modernism, or the modernworldview, has been ta$ing root all over the world ever since it reached a certain levelof maturity in 0estern (urope roughly two hundred years ago. e ac$nowledges,however, that the global dominance of this modern orientation is far from complete.There are poc$ets of resistance in almost all parts of the world, a few of which arethriving even in the midst of advanced industriali#ed societies. !c$nowledging thatnumerous groups and sub2cultures are indeed trying to hold on to their traditionalandBor non20estern ways of thin$ing and viewing the world, "r. Israr !hmademphasi#es that this fact should not prevent us from appreciating the big picture. Themodern worldview has acquired so much influence and has become so pervasive in theworld that these minority viewpoints seem to be fighting a lost battle. (ven if theysucceed in preserving themselves as such for the time being, they are li$ely to do so as*alternative viewpoints or lifestyles that have little relevance for, or impact upon, the

mainstream of human civili#ation. If a few members of an *exotic species were tosurvive in a #oo, that does not change the reality that it has become practically extinct.

The claim that the modern worldview has become the predominant viewpoint ofhumanity does not mean that it affects every single person in the world in exactly thesame way or with exactly the same intensity. The author ma$es an importantdistinction between the elite classes on the one hand and the vast majority of humanpopulation on the other hand. !s we shall see later, his definition of the *ruling andleading classes is much broader than what is normally understood by these words&essentially, the phrase *ruling and leading classes is synonymous with the word*elite, which itself has a range of meanings. 4riefly, the author is referring not just tothe political elite that run a particular regime, such as politicians, electedrepresentatives, and diplomats, but also to the social elite, such as top bureaucrats andtechnocrats& the cultural elite, such as prominent journalists, broadcasters, artists,thin$ers, scientists, and educators& and the economic elite, including successfulentrepreneurs, top business executives, and traditional aristocrats. !ll of these groupsof people are necessarily a small minority in any given society& yet they are thecarriers of the modern orientation.

The author argues that, in a given society, the degree of the predominance of 0esternthought and culture tends to be unequally distributed& its presence or impact can beseen most clearly among the elites of the society, i.e., among the relatively smallnumber of individuals who enjoy a disproportionally large share in power/regardless ofwhether the power in question is primarily social, political, cultural, economic, or somecombination of these. In other words, the elites in all societies tend to be far moremoderni#ed or 0esterni#ed than the rest of the population. It is not unusual, therefore,to find a variety of traditional or premodern beliefs and practices thriving among themasses at large. n the other hand, those who enjoy the most influence in determininga given societys overall direction and in shaping its norms and standards are the same

people who are most li$ely to display that style of thin$ing or point of view which theauthor identifies as *modern and *0estern.


8/61

8Towards the end of the first section, "r. Israr !hmad ma$es one of the most importantpoints of the entire treatise. e suggests that modern or 0estern influences are not onlypervasive in todays world, they are also frequently below the level of consciousawareness. In other words, many in the modern world are unaware that their ownstyle of thin$ing or point of view has become thoroughly modern and 0estern. Thislac$ of self2$nowledge can be observed most clearly among those social or political

movements that are see$ing to overturn the dominance of 0estern thought andculture in different parts of the world. 0hile such movements/including their leadersand ran$2and2file members/fancy themselves as ta$ing a stand against *the 0est andits hegemonic influence, they fail to notice that a large chun$ of their own motivationand methodology is based upon, or derived from, 0estern assumptions and attitudes.-ut differently, such movements are unable to see that they are resisting *the 0estwithin a conceptual and practical framewor$ that is itself a 0estern product& thateverything from their methods of organi#ing to their strategies, from their ideologicaledifices to their final aims, can be shown as either inspired by or borrowed from thesame mindset that they are opposing and hoping someday to replace.

This is perhaps the ultimate proof of the ascendancy of the modern worldview/thateven the self2proclaimed adversaries of modern thought and culture have been unableto extricate themselves from the very orientation that they find problematic and from

which they want to liberate the rest of the world. Furthermore, since a worldview ispredominantly a set of attitudes and assumptions that operate at the subconsciouslevel, this last observation vindicates our own contention that *worldview is preciselywhat the author has in mind whenever he refers to *style of thin$ing and *point ofview.

The )undamental Point of *iew

The ideas and conceptions behind modern civili%ation did not comeinto being overnight, nor should they be mista"en as constituting asimple and monolithic entity. $uring the last two centuries or so,practically countless schools of thought have emerged in the West, andhuman beings have in(uired into human nature and e&istence from

virtually innumerable points of view. Throughout this variegatedintellectual journey, however, a single viewpoint has becomeincreasingly established. Thus, while modern thought is both comple&and diverse, it is nevertheless possible to identify a particular viewpointas forming its essential foundation. This viewpoint may be stated asfollows+ The central a&is of human reflection and investigation shouldconsist of solid facts- and actual, observable events#as opposed toimaginary- or transcendent- notions. According to this viewpoint, thelegitimate objects of human in(uiry should be the physical universe, asopposed to od/ the material body, as opposed to the spirit/ and the life ofthis!world, as opposed to the life hereafter. Though at a purely academiclevel the reality of od, the spirit, and life hereafter was neither

confirmed nor denied, this avowedly agnostic position has led, (uiteunderstandably, to the gradual elimination of these concepts- from thedomain of legitimate human in(uiry. 0ecause of this viewpoint, all ofhuman curiosity and concern become focused upon and restricted tothe realm of the material universe, the physical body, and the life of this!world.

1onsider the fact that $ivine Providence has bestowed upon human"inda great many capacities, the disciplined use of which in any field isbound to produce definite results. 0y applying these capacities, allmanners of see"ers and e&plorers can potentially discover entirely newworlds in their respective fields of in(uiry. 1onsider also that a single

atom appears trivial when compared to the mighty sun, but if some of thedivinely bestowed human capacities were to be focused on the


9/61

9e&ploration of that trivial atom, it would reveal itself as a magnificentand glorious sun in its own right. 2n the same analogy, the materialuniverse, the physical body, and the life of this!world appear to possessno ontological value when we compare these to the reality of od, thespirit, and the life hereafter/ and yet, if all the human capacities forac(uiring "nowledge were to be focused solely upon the physical and

material reality, even this otherwise insignificant realm would seem topossess an endless span and a bottomless depth.

This is precisely what happened in the West. When the universe- andmatter- were brought under the lens of scientific in(uiry, the result wasa chain reaction of discoveries and innovations. 1lues were revealedthat pointed to immense sources of energy that have so far been lyinghidden or dormant behind the veils of nature. These developmentsastonished the world and brought about revolutionary transformationsin all areas of arts and sciences.

Two important conse(uences followed this revolution+ )irst, a series of

continuous brea"throughs in deciphering the laws of nature, aharnessing of natural forces and their use as efficient sources of energy,and an uninterrupted stream of innovative tools and techni(ues#all ofthis led to the rise of Europe as an invincible power. 3econd, theimmense power and grandeur of matter- came to be seen as anirrefutable argument in favor of focusing the human ga%e on the physicaluniverse, as opposed to od. The marvelous success of science itselfbecame a veritable proof that the truly important object of human in(uirywas matter and its physical and chemical properties, rather than odand the attributes of od.

Commentary

"r. Israr !hmad begins this section by suggesting that we ought to be very carefulwhen using the term *0estern Thought. 0e should not use this term as if it referred toa single, static, or indivisible entity. This is an important consideration that requires adetailed treatment.

For the sa$e of brevity and convenience, we often use terms that are actually impreciseways of referring to very complex, multifaceted, and diverse set of phenomena. Thiswor$s fine so long as there is a common understanding between the spea$er and thelistener about the meaning of the term in question. !t other times, however, the usualway of spea$ing in short2cuts can be problematic.

For instance, consider the word *Islam. %omeone may use this word in a sentence, suchas *Islam is peace, but without giving any further explanation. This may cause a

problem, particularly if the spea$er is unaware that the word *Islam does not refer to asingle, static, or indivisible entity that could be easily recogni#ed by all people withoutdifficulty or disagreement. ! critical audience would want to $now1 Is the spea$erreferring to the !rabic word or the religious tradition3 If the latter, does the spea$ermean the normative and ideal tradition or the actual and historical one3 Is the spea$erreferring to metaphysics or law3 Is the spea$er tal$ing about theology or ethics3

In this example, the problem in communication stems from the fact that there is noconsensus in the real world as to the precise meaning of the word *Islam, which is whydifferent members of the audience are li$ely to hear this word in a variety of differentways, leading them to a variety of interpretations regarding what the spea$er wishes toconvey.

The same is true when we use terms li$e *0estern Thought. !s "r. Israr !hmad pointsout, there is no such thing as *0estern Though, if we understand by this term a

simple, uncomplicated, well2defined, and unchanging *thing that exists out there andcan be recogni#ed as such by everyone without difficulty or disagreement. 9i$e thereferent of the word *Islam, what we wish to indicate by a term li$e *0estern


10/61

10Thought is not a monolithic entity. 0hat is called *0estern Thought is not one idea&it does not spea$ with one voice& it is not made up of one substance. n the contrary, it isa set of complex, multifaceted, and diverse phenomena.

Thus, even though we use the term *0estern Thought in the singular/again, for thesa$e of brevity and convenience/what we are referring to is, in reality, a vast array ofideas, concepts, theories, ideologies, and philosophies that are often at odds with each

other. 'nder the extremely broad rubric of *0estern Thought, we find elements thatfiercely compete against each other because they happen to be mutually exclusive.

0e dont have to ta$e the authors word on this point& for even a quic$ survey of0estern intellectual history will show far greater diversity than agreement, withmuch of the diversity representing divergences over fundamental questions. This ishardly surprising. ! dynamic and energetic culture that values intellectual activity aswell as freedom of conscience would naturally give rise to a wide range of ideas throughthe interplay of dialogue and debate.

aving established that *0estern Thought is not monolithic, "r. Israr !hmadattempts to show that there is, nevertheless, a profound unity that underlies all of itsobserved diversity. e contends that there is a particular feature hidden underneaththe entire range of modern thought and culture that has remained constant at least

over the last two hundred years, even as all other variables have undergone major orminor changes. "r. Israr !hmad implies that this particular feature is exceedinglyimportant precisely because there has been little or no opposition to its veracity, or, atthe very least, such opposition has not been successful. In short, while recogni#ing thediversity of 0estern thought, he insists that there is something common and stablebehind the diversity of its outward forms.

0e can notice that "r. Israr !hmad seems to be ma$ing a major claim/he is sayingthat there happens to be a single common denominator underneath the immensediversity of 0estern thought, and that he $nows what it is. !t this point, a criticalreader cannot help becoming somewhat s$eptical, for the claim, if true, had to havemomentous implications& and yet, the author provides no evidence to bac$ up the claimbut simply states it as self2evident. Furthermore, the assertion is so broad and generalthat even a single counter2example would demolish his entire thesis. It appears to be aprecarious claim, and even somewhat naLve.

!s already noted, however, the issue at sta$e does not concern the many outward formsof 0estern thought, but something that lies at a deeper and mostly subconscious, level,i.e., the usually unac$nowledged but nevertheless potent attitudes and assumptionsthat drive our thoughts and actions. "r. Israr !hmad is not referring to specific theoriesor philosophies/which, as he recogni#es explicitly, are extremely diverse/but he isreferring to their normally hidden foundation, what is more commonly $nown asworldview.

If this interpretation is correct, then we can appreciate that "r. Israr !hmad is tryingto provide the reader with a potentially useful and even provocative way ofdetermining exactly what ma$es something *modern. In his understanding, the mostcharacteristic feature of modernity does not consist in either the acceptance or thedenial of any particular idea, conception, or doctrine. +ather, modernity is bestunderstood on the sole criterion of relative emphasis. !ccording to the author, a givenmode of thought or culture is modern if it places more emphasis on the physicaluniverse than it does on ?od& more emphasis on the material body than on the spirit&more emphasis on the life of this2world than on the life hereafter.

This way of defining modern thought and culture has the distinctive advantage ofprecluding simplistic or *digital judgments li$e yesBno, trueBfalse, blac$Bwhite.Instead of as$ing whether or not a particular mode of thought or culture is modern, thecriterion of relative emphasis requires that we as$ about the extent to which it ismodern. Thus, *modern can be conceived as a quality whose extent in any particularcase must be gauged according to a wide spectrum ranging from #ero to maximum. Inother words, *modern is not a quality that can be declared presentBabsent in anabsolute manner& instead of saying that ! is modern and 4 is not, the authors criteriononly allows us to say that ! is :slightly, moderately, significantly; more modern than 4.

To reiterate the authors argument in a slightly different way, the transition from*premodern to *modern always involves a shift of emphasis rather than an absolutechange of categories. It is not that a given instance of modern thought or culture must


11/61

11be absolutely atheistic or antireligious& nor is it the case that such tendencies wereentirely absent from all societies before the modern period. n the contrary, it isperfectly possible to believe in ?od and to be very religious in ones outloo$ and lifestylewhile still exhibiting in relative terms the defining characteristic of modernity.%imilarly, a society may allow what it believes to be complete religious freedom to allits members, and a culture may show great respect for religious symbols and practices,and yet the overall character of that collectivity may still lean heavily in favor of the

physical universe, the material body, and the life of this2world. To the degree that it isso leans, we may characteri#e it as *modern.

Thus defined, it is clear that concepts li$e *premodern and *modern are not to beunderstood primarily in relation to geographical regions or time periods, but in terms ofa human collectivitys ultimate priorities. %ince human societies and cultures tend tobe both complex and dynamic, our assessments must also be complex and dynamic.That is to say, in measuring a given collectivitys ultimate priorities in order todetermine the extent to which it may be modern or premodern, we must ta$e intoaccount both its internal diversity at any given moment as well as its changinglandscape over a period of time.

aving said this, however, we must also recogni#e that the quality of *modern ismuch more characteristic of the thought and culture of 0estern (urope and Dorth

!merica as compared to the rest of the world, and that it is much more characteristic ofthe last two hundred years as compared to the rest of the human past. 0e may ta$e thisobservation to be the wor$ing assumption of *Islamic +enaissance, while $eeping inmind that we are always dealing with patterns of relative emphases, and never withabsolute categories.

0hat do we mean by relative emphasis3 The human act of *emphasis may beunderstood in terms of how people express their values. The more we value something,the more we emphasi#e it/which means, simply, that we invest it with greaterattention. !s a human phenomenon, attention is practically synonymous withemphasis and constitutes a useful and sensitive index for our values. 0e have a limitedamount of attentiveness/the capacity to pay attention/at our disposal, both asindividuals and as societies& and the way in which we distribute our attentivenessamong our various concerns, each of which may be clamoring to monopoli#e ourattention, indicates our estimation of their relative value. In this light, "r. Israr

!hmads $ey phrase *shift of emphasis can be understood as any significant change ina societys allocation of its total attentiveness. The shift from the premodern to themodern involves precisely such a transformation.

0hile the process through which the premodern was first replaced by the modern on alarge scale too$ place in 0estern (urope, our author ma$es is very clear that we arenow living in a world where the ascendancy of modern thought and culture is notlimited to any particular area. Modernity has truly become global in its reach, and,with the possible exception of a few *undiscovered indigenous cultures, there is no partof the world that can completely escape its influence. In many instances, we find thatpeople living in societies that are far apart from each other are nevertheless adoptingidentical preferences in food, clothing, and entertainment. 4ut even when they retaintheir uniqueness in these matters, there is another level of homogeni#ation that is morefundamental than our choices regarding what we eat, wear, or enjoy. This deeper levelof homogeni#ation represents a convergence among otherwise diverse societiesregarding what is to be valued most highly and, as such, what deserves the largestshare of their attentiveness. In each moment, humans are faced with the choice ofwhether they would pay more attention to ?od or to the physical universe& moreattention to the spirit or to material body& more attention to the life hereafter or to thelife of this2world. n this criterion, the global domination of modernity is nothing otherthan the fact that, as both individuals and societies, humanity is increasinglychoosing/or is forced to choose/the latter set of values over the former. This *shift ofemphasis is a veritable revolution in the focus of the collective human attentiveness.!s such, it indicates a revolution in values.

ow was this revolution in human values brought about3 aving discussed "r. Israr!hmads view of what ma$es something modern, it would be useful to mention, albeitbriefly, some of the major landmar$s of the historical process through which modernityhas come to gain its present ascendancy. The shift happened gradually over several

hundred years/which amounts to a relatively short period in the march ofcivili#ation/with some of its most significant developments ta$ing place primarily in0estern (urope. In broad stro$es, we may discuss this process by referring to five


12/61

12interrelated and overlapping stages1 the +enaissance, the -rotestant +eformation, the%cientific +evolution, the (uropean (nlightenment, and the birth of the %ocial %ciences.

The word +enaissance literally means a *rebirth. The +enaissance was a periodstarting in the fifteenth century when (uropeans started to re2discover and study theforgotten boo$s of ?ree$ and +oman civili#ations. The period between the fall of theclassical world in the fifth century and the beginning of the +enaissance has been called

the *Middle !ges. This was the time when )hristian beliefs and values dominatedmuch of (urope. owever, by the twelfth century, the +oman )atholic )hurch and theoly +oman (mpire were beginning to lose their grasp over (uropean societies. The+enaissance represented a shift away from an interest in theology and other2worldlymatters, and towards more human and practical affairs.

The -rotestant +eformation was a religious movement that started in the sixteenthcentury under the leadership of Martin 9uther and ohn )alvin. It was a revolt againstthe wealth, political intrigues, and corruption of the +oman )atholic )hurch. The+eformation led to the development of a division of the 0estern )hristendom into)atholicism and -rotestantism. Instead of following the authority of the -ope and thepriests, the +eformation emphasi#ed the need for each believer to study the 4ible foroneself. 0ea$ening of the authority of the )hurch facilitated the development ofsecular political systems and paved the way for the creation of nation2states in (urope.

The %cientific +evolution started in the sixteenth century and came to its full strengthin the seventeenth. The wor$ of )opernicus, epler, ?alileo, "escartes, Dewton,arvey, and 4oyle radically changed the way in which human beings loo$ed atnature. !ristotles authority and ideas were effectively removed from the realm ofscience& instead, the method of observation, experience, and carefully controlledexperiment became the characteristic features of genuine science. Dature came to bedescribed in mechanistic terms, and its *conquest became a legitimate goal for bothscience and society.

The (nlightenment was a (uropean intellectual movement that started in theseventeenth century and came to its climax in the eighteenth century in the form ofFrench +evolution. This movement emphasi#ed the use of human reason for thebetterment of the human condition. %ecular political theories of ohn 9oc$e andThomas obbes became popular& the wor$ of +ousseau, Noltaire, and Montesquieu

shaped the (nlightenment movement in France, strengthening the idea of democracy.(nlightenment sought to apply human reason to religion, particularly )hristianity,leading to various degrees of s$epticism, agnosticism, and atheism. Most philosophers of(nlightenment, however, were deists& they believed in a few religious truths that theythought could be established by reason, such as the existence of ?od, but they rejectedorgani#ed )hristianity and refused to follow the dictates of the )hurch. The(nlightenment thought quic$ly spread throughout the rest of (urope and even shapedthe formation of the 'nited %tates.

%ocial %ciences began to develop in the nineteenth century under the influence of(nlightenments views on human nature and human society. The methods of sciencethat had already produced so much new $nowledge about the physical universe werenow applied to the study of human behavior and culture, leading to the development ofpsychology, sociology, economics, political science, and anthropology as more or lessindependent disciplines. The use of scientific inquiry to analy#e and predict the desires,motives, and actions of human beings was a truly groundbrea$ing step& among otherthings, it provided the impetus to the development of ideologies and ideologicalmovements, such as nationalism, socialism, and anarchism.

Through these five stages, the medieval worldview in 0estern (urope came to belargely replaced by the modern worldview. ften, the social and political authority ofreligion was compromised as a direct result of this shift, but the resulting changes alsoled on several occasions to the revival of religious concerns in new and unexpectedforms. verall, the shift of emphasis continued as collective attention increasinglymoved away from ?od, the spirit, and life hereafter, focusing more and more on thephysical universe, the material body, and the life of this2world. !longside thesechanges, the (uropean coloni#ing enterprise continued to gain control over additionaloverseas territories for economic exploitation. ?radually, the entire world wasincorporated into a new world order whose terms were set by (uropean powers. The

subjugated people not only encountered a force that was politically and technologicallysuperior, but one that also carried with it a unique worldview that it often tired topropagate with an almost missionary #eal.


13/61

13This new worldview showed a general disregard/and sometimes outright contempt/for all transcendent and metaphysical concerns, claiming science to be the onlylegitimate path to the $nowledge of truth. It exalted the physical universe to the statusof ultimate reality& narrow self2interest to the status of the highest good& and thepursuit of transient pleasures to the status of lifes only purpose. It was this worldviewthat challenged the traditional emphasis on transcendent realities in societies around

the globe.

Dotice that the above discussion has focused on the intellectual and culturaltransformations that characteri#e the momentous shift from the premodern to themodern. This way of loo$ing at the birth of modernity can be potentially misleading,for it tends to give too much attention to the efficacy of ideas and not enough attentionto the role played by concrete, material factors. ! historical analysis must addressintellectual and cultural changes, but it should also place such changes in the context ofthe concrete, material conditions that define much of the human environment.

"r. Israr !hmad attributes the sudden rise of 0estern political and military powerprimarily to the development of science and technology in the early modern period.This analysis is quite applicable to the dynamics of (uropean colonialism in thenineteenth2century, particularly in relation to its impact on the Islamic world. Indeed,

a major reason for the inability of Muslim polities to defeat (uropean incursions intotheir homelands was the superiority of the coloni#ers military technology and of theirscientific $now2how. The same analysis is much less applicable, however, to thedynamics of (uropean colonialism before the nineteenth2century. %ince "r. Israr!hmad does not discuss (uropean colonialism in its initial phase, his remar$s on therelationship between science and political power leave out certain factualconsiderations necessary for a fuller understanding of the birth of modernity.

0hile it is true that a rapid growth in scientific $nowledge accelerated theempowerment of the 0est in a variety of different ways, we should $eep in mind thatthe beginning of (uropean colonialism dates bac$ to the mid fifteenth2century, i.e., to aperiod well before the %cientific +evolution. !lso relevant is the fact that the nowfamiliar interdependence of science and technology is a relatively late developmentthat too$ place only in the mid nineteenth2century. The rise of science, then, could nothave been the initial cause for either the colonial enterprise or the resulting domination

of (uropean powers over much of non20estern world/even though science did becomea very important contributing factor in the last two centuries. n the other hand,(uropean technical expertise in farming, sea navigation, printing, and otherenterprises had preceded the birth of modern science.

To put the matter in slightly different words, even before they produced any majorscientific discoveries of their own, (uropean nations were acquiring various practicaltechniques from other cultures and applying them in their own context. They wereacquiring a technical orientation.

The historian Marshall odgson ma$es the following argument1 4etween 57>> and5>, the most important shift that too$ place in 0estern (urope was not so muchintellectual as it was technical& by giving an increasing attention to technicalconsiderations, a practical mastery over the forces of nature was achieved with little orno input from *science as we $now it today. Indeed, it was this increasing technicalexpertise that allowed the development of favorable material conditions under whichscience as a systematic and organi#ed discipline could find a niche. :%ee Marshallodgson@s description of AThe Technical !geA and AThe ?reat 0estern TransmutationA inCuotes and Insights.;

The impetus for this new emphasis on practical and technical matters was clearlyeconomic. In the fifteenth2century, one of the most urgent concerns for the nascent(uropean empires li$e %pain and -ortugal was to brea$ the monopoly of Muslimmerchants over the spice trade, a desire that was continuously frustrated by thettoman hold on %yrian and (gyptian coasts. In this bac$ground, it is worth recallingthat the exploits of Nasco da ?ama and )hristopher )olumbus were motivated by bothreligious prejudice and patriotic #eal. !t the turn of the sixteenth2century, the(uropean discovery of the !mericas brought about a drastic and unexpected increase inthe profitability of the colonial enterprise, allowing it to become the engine that

propelled the (uropean quest for prosperity during the next five hundred years or so.Through massacres and enslavements, the %paniards and the -ortuguese were able toexploit the riches of the Dew 0orld on a scale well beyond the imagination of most


14/61

14(uropeans. The great flow of wealth and mobili#ation of slaves made possible by thisremorseless exploitation created the material conditions in (urope within whichmodernity as a form of thought and culture could begin to ta$e shape. The rise ofmodern )apitalism and the fueling of the Industrial +evolution were two of the mostimportant consequences of the (uropean exploitation of the !mericas. The resultingfood surplus, urban leisure, and political stability brought about the $ind of affluentconditions, at least for certain classes of (uropeans, in which intellectual and cultural

developments could proceed at a previously impossible pace/including the rise ofmodern science. nce science established itself as a respectful and even necessaryenterprise, its own contributions began to serve the larger aims of (uropean empires,particularly the efficient control and exploitation of overseas colonies. In this context,the marriage of science and technology in the mid nineteenth2century brought theongoing empowerment of the 0est to an even higher level of virtual invincibility.

+egardless of whether we focus on ideas or on attitudes, the birth of the modern ageappears to be mar$ed by the same shift of emphasis identified above, i.e., a decrease inthe attention being given to transcendental concerns and a simultaneous increase inthe attention being paid to more mundane and concrete issues.

To sum up, (uropean navel expeditions were originally driven by the desire to controlinternational trade, an enterprise that demanded an increasing attention to practical

and technical expertise. This stress on improving practical technique becameexceptionally mar$ed during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a period whenmodern science was still developing independent of the growths in technology. nce theexploitation of the !mericas started to bring unforeseeable wealth to (urope, thelegitimacy of the coloni#ing enterprise became self2evident, demanding from thepopulation an ever2increasing investment in mastering practical and *this2worldlyissues. The demand could only have been met at the expense of transcendent concerns.It is clear that the philosophical thought that developed during this period was deeplyinfluenced by the changes in material conditions. The study of theology andmetaphysics, disciplines that focus on *other2worldly issues, became increasinglyirrelevant for the actual and immediate concerns of (uropean society, i.e., the physicaluniverse, the material body, and the life of this2world. This was a boon for the floweringof both physical and social sciences, since it was only these disciplines that promised tocreate the $nowledge necessary for controlling the forces of nature, increasing thelongevity and comfort of the material body, and improving the conditions of human

existence on earth.

Political and Intellectual 2nslaught of the West on theIslamic World

Thus empowered by the harnessing of newly discovered forces of nature,the West soon came to dominate much of the Eastern world. The Westernonslaught was an unstoppable flood that rushed through the entireworld, sweeping away the mighty empires of the East as if they were meresand castles. 3ince the peoples of the 4ear and the 5iddle East wereamong the earliest targets of European colonial offensive, Islam and5uslims faced the brunt of this onslaught. This led, in an incrediblyshort period, to the subjugation of the entire Islamic world to variousEuropean powers.

The Western domination of the Islamic world occurred at two levels#military and political on the one hand, intellectual and cultural on theother. In the initial phase, 5uslims e&perienced the Western onslaughtmost strongly at the political!military level/ as a result, their initialreaction against the West was aimed at achieving political liberationthrough armed resistance. The political domination of the Westmanifested overtly in the form of occupation and anne&ation as well ascovertly in the form of indirect control, the latter only thinly disguisedas mandates- and protectorates.- As the 5uslim ummah wo"e up tothis new reality and began to recogni%e the e&tent of her politicalsubjugation and the fragmentation of her communal integrity, the


15/61

15resulting grief often too" the form of heart!wrenching laments. Thenostalgia for the ummah6s glorious past spar"ed a widespread passionamong 5uslims masses to bring bac" her former splendor and majesty#indeed, to turn the cloc" bac"wards. It was this nostalgic passion thatembodied itself on one occasion as the volatile personality of 7amal al!$in al!Afghani and on another occasion as the popular movement to

restore the 8hilafah. 0ut each time it was the concrete, factual realitythat made a moc"ery of such sentimental wishes, as the politicaldomination of the West increasingly became an established andac"nowledged fact.

In the wa"e of consolidating their political hegemony, European powersstarted propagating the modern point of view and style of thin"ingamong their new subjects. 9aving defeated the 5uslims in the politicalarena, these powers were (uic" to initiate the process of con(ueringthem in the realm of ideas as well. The da%%ling material progressachieved by the West had already mesmeri%ed the majority of 5uslims,who were now particularly vulnerable to intellectual capitulation.

)urthermore, any dynamic and vibrant culture necessarily displayscertain e&emplary character traits/ coloni%ed 5uslims were overawed asthey observed and e&perienced such virtues in the dominant Westernculture. With their critical faculties more or less suspended, 5uslimsapproached Western thought with a defeatist and submissive mentality,and, (uite predictably, their vast majority began absorbing Western ideasand concepts with little or no discrimination. The plurality ofperspectives in modern humanities did allow some space for debate anddisagreement, or at least the possibility of selective adoption, but nosuch space was permitted by the physical sciences. 5uslimsencountered the results of these sciences as absolutely certain andun(uestionably conclusive, since these results were believed to be

grounded in demonstrable empirical evidence. 1onse(uently, they hadlittle choice but to greet the claims of these sciences with the "ind ofuncritical ac(uiescence that one normally reserves for a heavenly writ.As a cumulative result of these factors, the point of view based ondisbelief and materialism seeped into the minds of the most thoughtfuland perceptive of 5uslims#without any conscious awareness on theirpart. An increasing emphasis on the physical universe, the materialbody, and the life of this!world accompanied a decreasing emphasis onod, the spirit, and the life hereafter. This change in viewpoint was sosweeping that even the more religious and pious sections of theummah could not remain unaffected.

Commentary

!t the beginning of this section, "r. Israr !hmad contends that *the peoples of the Dearand Middle (ast were among the earliest targets of the (uropean colonial offensive.This statement is unli$ely to be an oversight or mista$e& instead, it seems to indicatethat the author is not concerned in the present context with the initial phase of(uropean colonialism, but that he is focusing almost exclusively on its later phase.

0hat was (uropean colonialism3 ow did it function3 0hy did it have such a powerfulimpact on the Muslim world3 These questions have continuing relevance today. !nyadequate understanding of the current predicament of the ummah requires a deepfamiliarity with the colonial experience and its aftermath.

Muslims first experienced 0estern modernity in the context of their subjugation at thehands of (uropean colonial masters. !s a result, the attitude of most Muslims towardsmodernity was initially shaped by their attitude towards colonialism, their loss of


16/61

16political power, and the collapse of their social, cultural, and educational institutionsthat had $ept the classical IslOmic tradition vibrant for many centuries. Furthermore,as Muslims developed social, political, and intellectual responses to the relativelysudden changes brought about by the processes of moderni#ation, they did so within thecontext of direct or indirect rule by (uropean powers. In order to understand some ofthe Muslim responses to modernity, as well as to appreciate the many ways in whichIslam itself has been understood in the last two hundred years, we must grapple with

the nature and impact of the colonial experience.

(uropean colonialism brought about a crucial difference between 0esterners and therest of the world as regards their typical experience of modernity and moderni#ation.For most (uropean nations, the development of modernity was closely associated withtheir liberation from the ecclesiastical and royal2feudal systems of oppression andexploitation that had become entrenched during medieval times. For most Muslims, onthe other hand, the first exposure to modernity was not only associated with slaveryand servitude at the hands of foreign rulers, it was also experienced as something alienand artificial in itself, imposed on them from the outside rather than being an organicproduct indigenous to their own cultures. "uring the colonial as well as the postcolonialperiods, the processes of moderni#ation in Muslim societies progressed at anexceptionally rapid pace and, frequently, in a hapha#ard manner, leading to socialdisruptions at a wide scale. 'nder (uropean colonialism, Muslims experienced brutal

oppression and greedy exploitation, perpetrated by the representatives of a civili#ationthat was, at the same time, claiming to be the brightest beacon of freedom and libertyever seen by human$ind. This contradiction was to have far2reaching impact onMuslim perceptions not only of 0estern peoples but also, more significantly, of modern0estern thought itself.

(uropean colonialism began in 5=5K with the conquest of )euta in Dorth !frica by a-ortuguese expedition. ! $ey turning point came with the *discovery of the Dew0orld by )hristopher )olumbus in 5=6J. "uring the next K>> years or so, eight(uropean countries would conquer and coloni#e vast territories in !frica, !sia, and!merica. These were -ortugal, %pain, France, the 'nited ingdom, the Detherlands,4elgium, ?ermany, and Italy. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as these(uropean nations were embar$ing upon global empire building, the three majorMuslim empires of the time/ttoman, %afavid, and Mughal/had reached the pea$s oftheir power and were about to enter a period of decline and disintegration. %ignificant

power vacuums would soon arise in the Muslim majority regions of the world. In thecoming centuries, the new colonial powers of (urope would fill those vacuums eitherthrough direct conquest and rule or through indirect influence and manipulation.

ne of the major events in the history of colonialism came in 586< when Dapoleonsarmy conquered (gypt, even though the French rule in (gypt was soon removed by the4ritish in 55. %ince that time, (gypt remained only nominally free, for it waspractically under the powerful influence of the 4ritish, particularly after 5


17/61

17military strength they needed to successfully challenge the established empires of theld 0orld. (uropean economies began to grow exponentially during this period, than$sto the *export of enslaved !fricans to the Dew 0orld as well as the semi2imperialactivities of such early corporations as the "utch and the 4ritish (ast India )ompanies.-art of the significance of this phase is that the encounter between (uropean nationsand a variety of non2(uropean peoples helped the former construct for themselves theirdistinctive cultural identity as *0esterners.

This empowerment of (uropean nations at the cultural, economic, and military levelspaved the way for the later phase of their colonial enterprise, a phase that included(uropean incursions into the literate and city2based cultures of (ast !sia, Dorth !frica,the Middle (ast, and the Indian %ubcontinent. !s already mentioned, the earlier phaseof (uropean conquests was largely executed without the benefit of the coupling betweenscience and technology. Indeed, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, theemerging (uropean powers had not yet acquired the military capacity that wouldallow them to easily and decisively subdue one of the well2established empires of therient. (ven during the nineteenth2century, (uropean armies had to face many well2organi#ed and sustained oppositions on the battlefield, despite their rapidly increasingadvantage in weapons technology.

n the other hand, it must be ac$nowledged that the (uropean conquest andBor

domination of the older Muslim empires did not result solely from (uropes economicand military strength. %igns of social, political, and cultural decline were apparent invarious Muslim societies well before any (uropean invasion. Indeed, it was precisely inresponse to this decline that a number of Islamic movements for reform and revival hadalready become active in the Muslim world during the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies. %ubsequently, as the threat of (uropean invasion and foreign rule appearedon the hori#on, some of the same movements militari#ed themselves in order tochallenge (uropean invasion and rule in places li$e India, %udan, %omalia, !lgeria,9ibya, %umatra, and the )aucasus.

"espite some initial setbac$s, however, (uropeans eventually triumphed in thesearmed encounters, than$s to their superior technology and organi#ational s$ills.%ubsequently, freedom movements in the coloni#ed Muslim world would ta$e political,rather than militant, forms& though !lgerias struggle against French rule was anotable exception. In many ways, the trauma of defeat and the humiliation of foreign

rule served to sha$e significant sections of the Muslim population out of theircomplacent slumbers.

It is important to $eep in mind that he basic motives for the entire colonial enterprisewere economic1 cheap labor, cheap raw material, control of international trade, andmar$ets for the newly emerging )apitalist system. owever, more respectable religiousand cultural justifications for the colonial enterprise were also generated& one suchrationale was depicted in +udyard iplings famous poem *The 0hite Mans 4urden.The actual experiences of the encounter between the coloni#ers and the coloni#ed weremulti2dimensional and complex. This encounter involved a great deal of cultural andintellectual exchange that left both sides thoroughly transformed in various ways.!mong (uropeans, the intoxication of political and technological power led to a belief inthe natural superiority of the 0hite race and the uniqueness of its rationalism, asopposed to the racial and ethnic inferiority of the *natives along with their incapacityfor rational and scientific thought. The very humanity of non2(uropeans wasquestioned/an attitude that was widely used to justify not only the need for overseascolonies but also mass $illings and enslavement.

)ultural identity is typically constructed in terms of an *us2versus2them dichotomy,in which a *self is defined in contrast to an imagined opposite, or *other. If the nativepeoples of the !mericas acted as (uropes primary *other during the first phase ofcolonialism, Muslims of the Dear and Middle (ast were assigned that role during itssecond phase. In order to consolidate their own distinctive identity as *0esterners,(uropean nations needed to construct a category of *(asterners that would serve astheir exact opposite or nemesis, a contrasting *other. Furthermore, there already wasa tradition among (uropean )hristians of polemical writings against Islam andMuslims& in other words, a cultural vocabulary already existed that had previouslyserved to create the *Islam2versus2)hristianity dichotomy. Together, these two factorsled to the construction of an image of Islam and Muslims that was fraught with a

variety of negative characteristics. Muslims in particular, and *rientals in general,came to be seen as naturally inferior, irrational, violent, uncivili#ed, and incapable ofruling themselves/hence in need of the (uropean civili#ing mission.


18/61

180hile the initial impact of (uropean control of Muslim lands was experienced primarilyin the political sphere, its impact in the cultural sphere soon became increasinglysignificant. Through (uropean colonialism, Muslims came face to face with the resultsof the dramatic changes that had ta$en place in (urope during the previous centuries,including rapid scientific progress, technological innovation, rationali#ation of thoughtand society, and the consolidation of the modern nation2state with its impersonal but

powerful bureaucracy. The resulting brea$down of traditional forms of culturalpractices and educational institutions in Muslim societies was accompanied by thewea$ening/and in some cases collapse/of ta$en2for2granted certainties. This encounterwith modernity and moderni#ation gave birth to a chain2reaction of transformations inMuslim societies that accentuated some of the tensions and contradictions that had beenlying dormant just underneath the surface. ! process of soul2searching also beganamong the Muslim intelligentsia, leading to a profound re2examination of the Islamictradition as part of their attempts to ma$e sense of the modern realities. This too$ placewithin the context of an entirely new form of $nowledge that was (uropean in originbut was rapidly becoming global in its reach and impact.

From the viewpoint of nineteenth2century Muslim societies, modern $nowledge had twodistinct dimensions1 the first consisted of modern social and philosophical thought, andthe second consisted of modern science and technology. The first was armed with the

power of logic and rationality, and the second with the power of practicaldemonstration. There was no consensus among (uropean thin$ers on social andphilosophical questions& indeed, they were divided among numerous schools of thoughtmar$ed by fierce debates and controversies. The fact that the 0est could not spea$ onthese issues with a unanimous voice allowed some breathing space for Muslims& at leastin theory, Muslims had the option of arguing bac$, or at least pic$ing and choosing.%cience and technology, however, constituted an entirely different $ind of challenge.These disciplines had established their truth claims on the basis of controlledexperiments and demonstrable proofs. There was no possibility, in other words, to argueagainst a science that actually wor$ed, that was able to prove its claims withmathematical precision and by means of tangible results.

0estern military and political domination came to Muslim lands in the company of theuniquely modern ways of thin$ing& the resulting combination was hard to resist. Dowonder, then, that virtually all Muslims who came into direct or indirect contact with

modern thought before the twentieth2century found themselves at a seriousdisadvantage. Their society, culture, and tradition had not equipped them with thetools that were necessary for adequately and creatively dealing with what they wereup against. %ince the challenge was unprecedented, entirely new tools had to bedeveloped/but that required time. 'nable to provide self2confident responses to thisnew challenge, Muslim societies ended up internali#ing the basic premises of modernity.

It is important to $eep in mind that this acceptance of the modern worldview was notnecessarily a conscious phenomenon& nor did it always result from a direct exposure to0estern education. Nery few Muslims actually renounced their religion, although thisdid happen on several occasions. Most often, they passively absorbed the modernworldview from their respective cultural environments. The influence came slowly butsurely, and affected almost everyone in society to a lesser or greater degree, includingits most religious segments. The process was characteri#ed by a shift of attention andemphasis away from ?od, the spirit, and the life hereafter& and towards the physicaluniverse, the material body, and the life of this2world.

Early $efensive Attempts and their 2utcome

4umerous endeavors of a defensive nature were initiated on behalf ofIslam, through which many concerned and devout 5uslims attempted tosafeguard their faith and religious tradition against the onslaught ofWestern thought and philosophy. These defensive attempts were of twomain varieties#first, attempts aiming at preservation alone/ and second,attempts aiming at protection along with some compromise andconcession.

0orrowing the analogy used by 5ana%ir Ahsan ilani, the first of the twovarieties can be described as similar to the strategy adopted by the


19/61

19People of the 1ave.- This refers to the story of As6hab al!8ahf as narratedin the 9oly :ur6an+ a group of young men flee from society when theirfaith was threatened, see"ing refuge in an isolated cave ;cf. 3urah al!8ahf !?@. In the nineteenth!century, the essence of this approachwas to focus upon preserving one6s faith and religiosity by removingoneself from the mainstream of social life and thereby avoiding its

challenges and temptations. Even though this attitude may appear to besheer escapist in motivation, it was based on the realisticac"nowledgement that the Islamic world did not have the capacity tosurvive in a face!to!face encounter with Western thought andphilosophy. The onslaught of the West was li"e an enormous tidal wave,and the only practical option for 5uslims was to move out of its way as(uic"ly as possible. In this approach, top priority was given to the tas" ofpreserving the integrity of Islamic faith and tradition, even at the cost ofhaving to retreat from the mainstream of society and becoming, as aresult, the targets of its derision and ridicule. Indeed, whatever successwas achieved during that period was the result of this very approach.Than"s to those who followed the e&ample of People of the 1ave,-

religious faith stayed alive in at least one section of the ummah/ a fewcandles of spirituality were left burning in the otherwise dar" night ofdisbelief and materialism/ and the basic structure of religiosity andreligious practice survived through the preservation and transmission oftraditional Islamic sciences. In the Indian 3ubcontinent, this "ind ofdefense was epitomi%ed by the $ar al!B'lum at $eoband, a religiousseminary that was also the vanguard of a great movement.

The second variety of 5uslim defense was characteri%ed by protection ofthe self as well some conciliation with the other. Its essence was a desireto "eep up with changing times without losing the commitment to Islam.The approach was two!fold/ first, to critically e&amine Western thought

and philosophy in order to sift the grain from the hus", and, second, toconstruct a new interpretation of Islam in order to establish its veracityin the modern world.

Initial efforts of this "ind were mar"ed by an e&cessive awe andadmiration for the West along with a sense of resigned ac(uiescence. InIndia and Egypt, a number of (uasi!theologians began to evaluate thefundamental tenets of Islamic faith and doctrine on the touchstone ofWestern rationalism. In their attempt to fit a s(uare peg in a round hole,as it were, these reformers were forced to trim down Islamicmetaphysical beliefs, often by e&plaining them away in purely scientificterms. 3ayyid Ahmad 8han in the Indian 3ubcontinent and 5ufti

5uhammad BAbduh in Egypt, as well their disciples and followers,epitomi%ed this variety of 5uslim defense. These reformers wanted theummah to follow the same path of material progress that Europe hadpioneered, and to "eep Islam with them as a supportive andaccommodating companion in this journey.

egardless of how sincere and well!intentioned these reformers mayhave been, the fact of the matter is that their efforts literally s(uee%ed thelife out of religious faith and tradition. Caunched under the pervasiveinfluence of Western thought and philosophy, these defensive attemptsat compromise and concession ended up producing a more or lessseculari%ed version of Islam.

If there was any useful outcome of this variety of defensive efforts,


20/61

20perhaps it was this+ 5uslims who were already westerni%ed in theirthin"ing and life!style did not have to repudiate their connection toIslam. )or such 5uslims, this modernist and seculari%ed version ofIslam became the apology- that they would humbly offer to the West ine&change for maintaining their 5uslim identity.

Commentary

In the wa$e of the establishment of 0estern political2military dominance over Muslimlands, modern (uropean thought started to permeate into every crevice and cranny ofthe coloni#ed societies. This was an intellectual and culture encounter between two setsof apparently opposing worldviews and ways of life/on the one hand was a powerfuland confident civili#ation, armed with new philosophies, efficient technology,rationali#ed bureaucracy, and a pervasive sense of its own moral superiority& on theother hand was a once2powerful but now2vanquished civili#ation that had already beensuffering from political and social disintegration and relative intellectual stagnation fora number of centuries. bviously, the precolonial Muslim societies were not free fromserious socio2political and cultural problems& these problems were certainly being*managed in various ways but had yet to be fully faced, identified, addressed, andresolved. In this bac$ground, we can appreciate how the encounter between the

coloni#ing 0est and the coloni#ed Muslim world contributed to the exacerbation of someof these problems& inadvertently, the new stress of coloni#ation and moderni#ationworsened the contradictions hidden just below the surface in many Muslim societies,and brought them out in the open.

!fter being defeated in the political realm, coloni#ed Muslims now faced the full force ofmodernity in the intellectual and cultural realm as well. ow did they deal with such aformidable challenge3 ?enerally spea$ing, there were two major varieties of Muslimresponses. ne group of Muslims refused to engage with the intellectual and culturalside of the modern 0est in order to safeguard its own faith and way of life as well as topreserve and transmit the legacy of the Islamic tradition to future generations. Thiswas similar to the approach ta$en by a group of young men, sometimes $nown as the*people of the cave, whose story is recounted in %urah al2ahf of the Curan. !ccordingto the Curan, these unidentified young individuals feared that if they were to continueliving in their home town, they would be forced to renounce their faith against theirwill& not finding enough strength within themselves to face the opposition directly,they left the town and hid themselves in a cave, far away from any human population.In the nineteenth2century, we find that a significant minority of Muslims adopted thesame approach, partly in order to maintain the continuity of Islamic tradition throughlearning and teaching but partly to circumvent the powerful impact of 0esternthought and culture.

In contrast, the other Muslim approach vis2Q2vis 0estern modernity was to face thechallenge head2on. This group attempted to acquire the $nowledge offered by thecoloni#ers with a view to apply Islamic standards to its contents, and, on that basis, toanaly#e and differentiate among the different elements of 0estern modernity. Theyhad recogni#ed that the cultural and intellectual side of modernity cannot be entirelywrong or evil, but that it was most li$ely some combination of good and bad elements.Their objective was clear& they wanted to embrace those elements of modernity that

were compatible with Islam, and to discard the rest.!t first sight, one might say that the former group was trying to escape or avoid thechallenge due to a defeatist mentality while the latter group was adopting a courageousand principled approach. 0ith the advantage of hindsight, however, it can be said thatthe former group had shown better judgment& it was as if this group had ac$nowledgedthat Islam at that point in its history was incapable of a self2confident engagement withmodernity, and that the best strategy was not to fight and be martyrs but to retreat,regroup, and reorgani#e. In the meantime, it focused its energies on ensuring that thelegacy of religious $nowledge and culture, including the IslOmic textual tradition, was$ept intact and passed onto the next generation. 0ith the benefit of hindsight, it mayalso be said that the apparently courageous latter group did not have the wherewithalto successfully meet the challenge of 0estern modernity. (ven though it had the rightattitude as well as sincere motives, it ended up accepting most things modern withoutadequately sifting the hus$ from the grain. 0hile this group admired the 0ests use ofcritical reason, generally spea$ing it could not apply that critical reason to modernityitself.


21/61

21%everal factors contributed to this outcome, out of which *timing was probably themost important factor. From the Muslim viewpoint, it was too early in the game to goon t

islamic renaissance-the real task ahead

Documents