|
RECONSTRUCTION OF ISLAMIC THOUGHT
By Asghar Ali Engineer
How do we look at a religion? As a set of rituals, dogmas and
institutions? Or as values and thought system? Some emphasise the former
and others the latter. Generally the masses of people are more concerned
with rituals dogmas and institutions whereas the intellectuals lay more
emphasis on thought system and values, particular on the thought system.
For the masses religion is nothing but performance of certain rituals as
laid down and to have belief in certain dogmas formulated by the learned
scholars. For them anyone who deviates from performance of these rituals
or questions any of these dogmas is a 'heretic' worthy of condemnation.
The intellectuals may lay more emphasis on the thought system of a
religion but there are those who accept the thought system as inherited
and there are those who are intellectually quite active and consider it
necessary to rethink the thought system of the religion they have
inherited. In a dynamic society , there are much greater possibilities of
rethinking the thought system. In a stagnant or a closed society such
possibilities are smothered. The early Islamic society was highly dynamic
and full of vitalities. Islam was a great revolution, not only religious
but also social and economic. It had upturned all old ideas and
ideologies. It gave human society a new value system and heightened the
human sensitivity for change for the better. Islam put greater emphasis on
change and called everything old into question. It encouraged people to
rethink the beliefs of their ancestors. All that ancestors believed in was
not necessarily right and beneficial.
Thus in early Islam change was never thought to be a 'sin'. The Qur'an
laid great emphasis on 'ilm as well as 'amal (knowledge and practice). The
Arab peninsula was an area of darkness in many ways. Only poetry was their
passion. The other area of information they were proud of was what they
called ansab i.e. the family tree. For them the nobility (sharf) of
ancestors was more important than their own. They were greatly proud of
their ancestry. Islam changed all this. It brought about complete
revolution in the Arab mind set which spread to other areas conquered by
the Arabs. The emphasis was on present and future, not on the past. The
Individual was brought at the centre, not the tribe. The individual was
made responsible for everything, not the tribe one belonged to.
There was no quest for knowledge in the pre-Islamic Arabia. In fact any
knowledge except that of ones tribal ancestry was derided upon. The Qur'an,
on the other hand, put all the emphasis on 'ilm (knowledge) which is a
very comprehensive work in Arabic. 'Ilm is used for science as well. It
includes knowledge of everything created by Allah including the knowledge
of creator himself. Allah invites human beings to think, to brood and to
reflect on the whole universe, on the creation of Allah, the stars, the
earth, the plants and the animals. Also, the Qur'an lays great emphasis on
induction rather than deduction. The former leads to objective knowledge
of the universe and latter to speculation. Modern science is based on
induction rather than deduction.
Also, knowledge was given further practical orientation by laying equal
emphasis on 'amal (practice). 'Ilm without 'amal was projected as bereft
of any benefit to humanity. Correct knowledge ('ilm al-yaqin) and healthy
practice ('amal salih) is the most desirable synthesis. The word 'ilm al-yaqin
(i.e. knowledge with conviction) is of great value. It is thus clear that
the Qur'an neither encourages superficial knowledge nor allows its
instrumentalisation. Qur'an has been described as hudan lil muttaqin i.e.
a guide for the God fearing or the pious. Thus the term 'ilm is not only
comprehensive but also value-oriented. Knowledge must not only be true but
should also be based on conviction; it should not only advance the state
of information about the universe but should also serve the humanity.
Similarly 'amal (practice) as pointed out above, has to be nothing but
salih (healthy). The practice, based on knowledge and conviction, must
promote the health of society. The modern capitalist society often
exploits knowledge for private gain. Knowledge as an industry for private
gain is negation of all human values which leads humanity astray and hence
condemnable. Such a knowledge and wrong practice ('amal ghayr salih) will
be harmful to humanity and will distort all values. Knowledge per se is
desirable but it should be essentially value-oriented in order to benefit
the human society.
In Greece as well as in Persia, knowledge, at the time of rise of Islam,
had become quite speculative and devoid of external observation. Such a
knowledge may be useful in its own way but fails to advance our knowledge
about the creation, about the universe. The Greek and Persian knowledge
had, therefore, become stagnant and mere speculative exercises. The Qur'an,
while not rejecting the importance of philosophy, speculation and
knowledge of inner self, lays even more emphasis on objective knowledge
which is even more beneficial to humanity.
What kind of revolution it was in a stagnant society of Arabian peninsula
whose whole universe was its own tribe cannot be easily imagined by us
today. It was nothing short of a total break from the past; a break which
changed the whole quality of social life and brought about tremendous
advancement in knowledge. The ritual system of Islam - 'ibadat - was also
not devoid of value-system. The French revolution had given important
values to modern society - equality, fraternity and liberty. Islam had
given these values to humanity much earlier and had devised its 'ibadat
(ritual system) to reflect these values and hence these rituals were also
made part of 'amal salih (practice leading to social health).
Take for example the prayer system (salat) of Islam. Since Islam's whole
emphasis is on equality and dignity of all human beings and to create a
society without any hierarchy, all Muslims have to stand in one line for
prayer. In this there is absolutely no distinction of caste, race or
social status. Since slavery was initially permitted by Islam (though to
be ultimately abolished) even their human dignity was duly recognised by
making it obligatory on them to stand in one line with their masters. In
this respect no discrimination was allowed between masters and slaves as
both are human beings and both possess the same degree of human dignity.
Islam strictly forbade a human being prostrating before another human
being, not even before the Prophet. It is only Allah before whom one could
prostrate (perform sajdah). It is only unseen Allah who is the greatest
and human rulers are His creation and hence equal to other human beings.
Thus Islam wipes out, in one sweep, all distinctions between the ruler and
the ruled. Islam does not even recognise, let alone allow to be practised,
the institution of monarchy.
Similarly, Islam does not accord any priority whatsoever to race, tribe,
language, creed or colour. The Qur'an makes categorical statement to this
effect (see 49:13 and 30:22). It also strictly forbade the Muslims from
making any distinction between an Arab and non-Arab and a white and a
black. The Prophet, in order to effectively demolish any such hierarchical
distinctions, appointed a black liberated slave from Ethiopia, Bilal
Habshi, to give azan ( i.e. call Muslims to prayer), a distinction, many
Arabs close to the Prophet, intensely desired. But the Prophet accorded
this distinction to a black slave to emphasise the importance of equality
of all human beings.
No social or political system had put so much importance to the idea of
human dignity and equality until the French revolution of 1789 i.e. until
the close of eighteenth century. And, as pointed out before, this concept
of equality was also spiritualised by integrating it with the prayer
system of Islam. Thus equality found its place in the spiritual realm too.
But it is a matter of shame that Muslims did not steadfastly adhered to
this concept of equality and adopted the caste and other hierarchical
systems including the institution of monarchy under alien influences. The
Islamic teachings were discarded and yielded to other pressures.
The other slogan of the French revolution was fraternity. The Prophet of
Islam when he migrated to Madinah devised the institution of ukhuwwah
(fraternity) and made every Meccan migrant a brother of the Medinese
Muslim. The Qur'an also declared that all faithfuls are brothers (49:10)
and included women too in this category. The word mu'minun, as all
commentators of the Qur'an agree, is inclusive of both sexes. The third
part of the French revolution was 'liberty' which essentially means
freedom of conscience. The Qur'an accepted this freedom of conscience as
declared in the verse 2:256 and chapter 109. It is, in fact, erroneous
belief that Islam does not allow freedom of conscience.
It is again the later Muslim juristic formulations and practice which is
responsible for such an impression. If one goes by the Qur'anic
pronouncements it is crystal clear that freedom of conscience is quite
central to the Qur'anic thought. In fact every individual is free to do
what he or she likes and reward or punishment will entirely depend on
individual actions. In the tribal universe of Arabia it was the tribe
which decided individual actions denying him completely the freedom of
conscience. However, Islamic revolution put individual at the centre, not
the tribe or any other collectivity. The individual was made answerable
for all his deeds - good or bad. It was a revolutionary step in a tribal
society where individual was only a part of collectivity totally
subordinate to it.
Also, as anthropologists tell us, in a tribal society the main fulcrum of
knowledge is knowledge of received traditions and tribal customs. Any
other knowledge which is not related to the tribe is totally meaningless.
The ideas of cosmos, creation and all related notions originate from the
tribal practices. The frontiers of knowledge, in other words, cannot
transcend the boundaries of the tribal universe. Islam, however, broke
these tribal boundaries and made knowledge coterminous with the universe
i.e. the entire creation of Allah.
It is also very interesting to note that the Arab world which had never
known beyond tribal customs and traditions, became the fore-runner in the
world of jurisprudence. We may have several problems today with the
Shari'ah formulations. But, the juris corpus of Islam, was a highly
progressive body of laws in those days. The French revolution, as pointed
out above, had talked of liberty, equality and fraternity but had no
reference to justice. Islam, on the other hand, made justice as central as
equality, liberty and fraternity.
The notion of justice is very central to Islam (5:8). And it is justice in
its absolute and varied sense. The Qur'anic notion of justice is quite
comprehensive. No Muslim jurist could ever ignore the significance of
justice in his legal formulations. But how justice was understood to have
been done has of course been debatable. There may be arguments about how
justice was thought to have been done in medieval ages and what is modern
notion of justice. But that does not reduce the significance of justice as
a Qur'anic doctrine. The relativity of medieval notion of justice and its
modern notion is understandable.
The Qur'anic notion of justice was not tribal but universal. And this made
all the difference. The Qur'anic notion of justice is so universal that it
laid down that even the enmity with any one else should not come in the
way of dispensing justice (5:8). In a tribal society justice was confined
to within the tribal limits. There was no question of justice vis a vis
other tribes. Islam, on the other hand, lays down that justice be done
even to an enemy. The Qur'an gives the principle of justice as a norm; the
legal doctors applied it to various issues which arose from time to time,
according to their own ability, understanding and socio-cultural
background.
It is necessary to understand that it is justice which has to be
rigorously applied to all the issues in framing laws. It is the very
foundation of the juris corpus of Islam. It is more central than the
corpus of laws inherited by us. As the legal doctors applied the notion of
justice in keeping with their own circumstances we must rethink the issues
in Shari'ah laws based on the notion of centrality of justice particularly
in the sphere of family laws.
Here we would like to point out that the position of women in the Qur'an
is not subordinate to that of man. Certain verses (like 4:34) are used
selectively, and out of context, to project subordination of woman to man
ignoring several other verses (like 2:228, 9:71, 33:35 and others) which
clearly indicate equality of man and woman. The verses 9:71 and 33:35 are
quite central in this respect. In verse 9:71 men and women are not only
shown each others friends but also charged with equal responsibilities of
enjoining good and forbidding evil, keeping up prayer and paying the
poor-rate (zakat). How could then women be inferior to men?
Thus we should not hesitate in having a second look at the Shari'ah laws
which have in built medieval biases towards women. The Qur'an was the
first scripture in the world to accord equal dignity to man and woman.
Prior to Islam even great Greek philosophers thought that animal and women
have no soul and hence women deserve no legal rights. Women could not
inherit, let alone holding property in her own right, even in Roman law,
prior to Islam.
The spirit of the Qur'an is more important than the opinions of medieval
legal doctors and hence entire corpus of Shari'ah laws in this regard
should be re-examined and re-thought. Also, as pointed out in some of my
books (Rights of Women in Islam, The Qur'an, Women and Modern Society and
Status of Women in Islam) there never was unanimity on these issues among
the legal doctors themselves. The opinions differed from one legal doctor
to another and on several issues even the disciples differed from their
masters. While some legal doctors do not even admit women's evidence on
hudud matters, others, like Imam Abu Hanifa, maintain that a woman can
even become qadi on the basis of verse 9:71. The Shari'ah laws as
formulated by early Muslim fuqaha' (i.e. legal doctors) need to be
thoroughly reviewed. The centrality of justice must be asserted.
Knowledge, as pointed out above, was quite central to Islam. Some of the 'ulama,
however, confined knowledge to knowledge of din (i.e. religion of Islam).
But there is no strong evidence in the Qur'an or sunna in this respect. It
is product of theologians' own mind. Since theologians were primarily
concerned with religious or theological matters, they tried to confine
knowledge to theological issues alone. Imitating these theologians many
people still argue that 'ilm should be confined to the 'ilm al-din and
reject other spheres of knowledge. But this view is no more a central view
in the world of Islam today.
In fact this view that knowledge in the Qur'an is confined to the
knowledge of din did not go uncontested even in the early history of
Islam. Knowledge from different sources and from different fields was not
only accepted by early Muslims but was also creatively advanced by them.
The entire corpus of Greek knowledge in various sciences, mathematics and
philosophy was transferred into Arabic language and passed on to Europe.
No wonder than that H.G.Wells, the noted British historian, has described
Arabs as foster father of knowledge. The Europe had lost contact with the
Greek treasure of knowledge and they re-established contact with it only
through the agency of Arabs. The House of wisdom (Bait al-Hikmah)
established by the Abbasids fulfilled this task.
The Muslims assimilated this knowledge and also enriched it immensely.
Their own contribution in enriching the Greek knowledge acquired by them
was no mean contribution. Also, they imbibed knowledge from other sources
as well i.e. Persian and Indian sources, besides their own Islamic
sources. The Mu'tazila ( of whom we plan to write in detail in another
paper) were a party of rationalists who gave primacy to reason. For them
reason was the test of faith and not vice versa. Thus if reason holds
something good, Shari'ah will also hold it good. The Asha'irah, on the
other hand, held something good because Shari'ah held it good even if
reason contradicted it.
The Mu'tazila also gave primacy to justice along with reason. this is what
the modern rationalists also plead. Thus the Mu'tazilah were as fervent
advocates of reason and justice as the modern rationalists are. But the
modern rationalists tend to be atheists which Mu'tazilah were not.
Mu'tazilah were also known as the party of tawhid wa al-'adl i.e. party of
unity of Godhood and justice. Thus Mu'tazilah were essentially theists but
also rationalists.
Islam, as all of us know, had arisen in Arabian peninsula and had its
vitality and practicability. Practical rationality remained quite central
to it. But when it spread to the ancient centres of great cultures like
parts of Eastern Byzantian empire, or Persian empire and India, it was
confronted with entirely different mind set. These great civilizations
were based, as pointed out before, on speculative reason and sophisticated
intellectual achievements. This had both positive and negative impact on
Islamic thought.
The Islamic thought became inward looking on one hand, and, lost some of
its most fundamental concerns like justice for weaker sections of society.
These centres of civilization were centres of feudal culture and along
with feudal sophistication, feudal values were also imbibed. Thus what
Islamic thought gained in swing, lost in its sweep. Islam spread with
great rapidity because of its great concern with justice for weaker
sections of society but now it became an integral part of a huge Islamic
empire and nearly lost its sensitivity towards suffering of the
downtrodden of the society.
The Qur'an which was so direct and simple in its teachings, became a
target for exercises in sophisticated inner meanings justifying
hierarchical values which came to be acquired through feudal cultures of
Roman and Persian empires. Monarchy became an acceptable institution and
blind and uncritical obedience to the ruling monarch on one hand, and
religious establishment of the time, on the other, became very common.
Disobedience to them was construed to be disobedience to Allah and His
Book. The earlier critical faculty and concern for justice was totally
lost. It was in this atmosphere that Islamic thought became totally
stagnant and part of oppressive establishment. There is great need to
recapture its earlier vitality, dynamism and sensitivity. Critical
evaluation and not blind obedience, is closer to the Islamic spirit. What
predominates today, however, is Islamic theological thought, on one hand,
and, age-old shari'ah formulation, on the other. It has made Islamic
thought totally stagnant.
What is to be noted is that what goes in the name of theology is human
construct and divine commandments as understood by human agency under a
set of socio-cultural influences. For example, 'Ilm al-Kalam (Islamic
dialectics) came into existence as a reaction to the widening influence of
Greek philosophy and Greek sciences during the Abbasid period. This became
an integral part of Islamic theology. Kalam, undoubtedly influenced the
great minds of Islamic world of the time and also the succeeding
generation for several centuries. But now Kalam cannot be treated as
unchangeable and reified. There is urgent need for a new ilm al-kalam in
the light of modern corpus of scientific knowledge.
A religion consists of several sub-systems like ritual system ('ibadat),
institutional system (like zakat, 'ushr, etc.), thought system and value
system (like equality, justice, compassion etc.). Of these ritual and
value- system are permanent and cannot be changed under any circumstances.
But the thought system could and must change, if religion has to keep pace
with time, its thought system should change. There is misconception among
Muslims about the Qur'anic verse 5:3 (i.e. This day have I perfected for
you your religion and completed My favour to you...). They think that now
what we have inherited is perfect in every respect and there is no need
for re-thinking in any sense at all. Our din is perfect.
The din is undoubtedly perfect but the meaning and significance of din
should be understood properly. One cannot include the kalam, for example,
in din. The Islamic thought system has been evolved by theologians who are
human beings and no human person can ever be perfect. Human beings think
under certain influences which they cannot transcend as human beings. All
Divine commands are sought to be understood by human agents under certain
socio-cultural influences and these influences are reflected in the
religious-thought system. Once we understand this there will be no
resistance to change in the thought system. This will bring about a great
revolution.
The Islamic Shari'ah is also an embodiment of Islamic values. Islamic
Shari'ah is nothing but a sincere attempt by the fuqaha' (Islamic jurists)
to apply divine commands and the Islamic values to a number of issues like
marriage, divorce, inheritance, nature of evidence, crimes like theft,
rape, adultery, division of property etc. This attempt to approach these
issues in the light of Islamic values and divine commands was also
influenced by the socio-cultural circumstances of the time. They could not
have applied Islamic values and divine commands to these issues in vacuum.
There is great deal of change in these external influences and hence many
of these shari'ah formulations stand in need of change. This change does
not amount to tempering with the divine commands but making yet another
human attempt in the light of our own experiences and our own
circumstances.
If we evolve this understanding of religion the dynamics of problem
changes and religion will be even greater force to bring about spiritual
transformation for the better. Naturally there will be differences in
opinion while bringing about these changes. We should not be afraid of
differences. These differences, if honest and sincere, provide greater
vigour to human thought. The founders of the different schools of
jurisprudence during the second and third centuries of Islam were not
afraid of differences. Why should we be?
Source: http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com
|
