Jihad or Ijtihad Read online

  THE RECONSTRUCTIONIST APPROACH

  What really compelled Syed Ahmed Khan to enter the dangerous and sensitive domain of reinterpreting the Quran and Shariat under the gaze of modern science and civilization? The year 1857 seems to have been decisive in this regard. Prior to 1857, Syed Ahmed, like most Muslim scholars of the period, spent his entire intellectual energy ‘in seeking to escape reality by having recourse to dreams of the Golden Age when Islamic civilization flourished in India’.17 His two most important works, characteristic of this stage in his career, are the Asar-us-Sanadid (1847), an inventory and description of the old monuments of Delhi and its surroundings with an account of the famous people who once resided in Delhi,18 and the recension of the Ain-i-Akbari (1856), Abul Fazl’s administrative and statistical account of Emperor Akbar’s government in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.19 The tumultuous days of the 1857 uprising were catastrophic enough to bring about a decisive change in Syed Ahmed Khan’s attitude towards life. He realized the potential of modern scientific knowledge and institutions, which, he felt, accounted for the victory of the British over the decaying medieval institutions represented by the Mughal emperor. He was quick to initiate a policy of reconciliation between the rulers and the ruled, (particularly Muslims, who were considered the enemies of the British), between Islam and Christianity, and finally, between the East and West. It is against this social and political background that we have to locate Syed Ahmed Khan’s policy of reconciliation between Islam and modern science.20

  Syed Ahmed Khan was one of the most radical modernizers of Islam during the nineteenth century, and still remains a controversial figure almost a century later. His revitalist position— in sharp contrast to the virulent anti-science and anti-modernist stance of the orthodox—was essentially to reinterpret the faith in order to reconcile the demands of modern civilization with the teachings and traditions of Islam. For him, early Islam till the times of Khalifa-i-Rashida (the four early Caliphs) was progressive, revolutionary, liberal and rational. One must, he believed, seek inspiration and guidance from that early Islam to emerge from the present rut. As a matter of fact, this looking back to early Islam is common to both the revivalists and the revitalists or reconstructionists. For the Wahabis, Islam in all its ramifications was frozen in the seventh and eighth centuries; any social, economic, intellectual or political advancement from that period onward was of no account to them. They were committed to removing from Islam such accretions as borrowings from Hinduism, while reconstructionists like Syed Ahmed and Amir Ali projected an ideal Islam in which all that was conformable with the spirit of the modern age qualified as ‘genuine’ and all that contradicted it was styled as ‘foreign’ and put aside. They used early Islam as a rhetorical ploy to convince the nineteenth century Indian Muslim that he/she needed to conceptualize Islam afresh to reconcile the faith with modernity, particularly science. The Wahabis were interested chiefly in the revival of orthodox religion while Syed Ahmed strove, first of all, for a social, economic, and cultural revival of his co-religionists with the motto: ‘The more worldly progress we make, the more glory Islam gains.’ To underline the significance of science in this progress, the reconstructionists went back to the sayings of the Prophet, emphasizing the supreme value of learning and science in Islam. For instance, the Prophet said, ‘The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr’; and ‘To listen to the words of the learned and to instil unto others the lessons of science is better than religious exercises.’ The Prophet repeatedly impressed on his disciples the need to seek knowledge ‘even unto China’.21

  Syed Ahmed Khan knew that the task at hand was a difficult one. It needed a radical reinterpretation of Muslim theology to extract ‘pure’ Islam from irrelevant and fossilized dogma: ‘My inquiring mind never left me … This made me arrive at the truth which we believe to be thet Islam [pure Islam] although conventional Muslims may hold it to be thet kufr [pure unbelief].’

  Writing on the intellectual history of the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, Pervez Hoodbhoy points that after the end of Akbar’s reign, there was an uninterrupted period of anti-science and anti-rationalist conservatism. Some 200 years before Syed Ahmed Khan, Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi and many other influential ulema had issued fatwas against mathematics and the secular sciences, demanding that the education of Muslims be conducted exclusively along religious lines. Aurangzeb had protested to his teacher about the futility of the subjects taught him. In harsh tones, he expostulated:

  What did you teach me? You told me that the land of Franks is a small stand where the greatest king had previously been the ruler of Portugal, then the king of Holland and now the king of England. You told me about the kings, of knowledge of geography and history you displayed! Was it not your duty to instruct me in the characteristics of the nations of the world—the products of these countries, their military power, their methods of warfare, their customs, ways of government and political policies?

  You never considered what academic training is requisite for a prince. All you thought necessary for me was that I become an expert in grammar and learn subjects suitable for a judge or a jurist.22

  Indian nobles like Danishmand Khan were drawn to the study of modern science and the arts, but their individual efforts could not crystallize into a movement for the popularization of modern science and technology.23 Had the anxiety of the Indian mind to keep abreast of Western learning in various spheres of science and art, evinced in the attitude and behaviour of Danishmand Khan, not vanished as quickly as it did, the transition from the medieval to the modern would have taken place much earlier in India.24 Syed Ahmed rebelled against this established orthodoxy, writing:

  Now with great humbleness I ask: of the different religious books, which exist today and are used for teaching which of them discusses Western philosophy or modern scientific matters using principles of religion? From where should I seek confirmation or rejection of the motion of the earth, or about its nearness to the sun? Thus it is a thousand times better not to read these books than to read them. Yes, if the Musalman be a true warrior and thinks his religion right, then let him come fearlessly to the battleground and do unto Western knowledge and modern research what his forefathers did to Greek philosophy. Then only shall the religious books be of any use. Mere parroting will not do.25

  For Syed Ahmed, who was primarily a religious scholar, the task of scientific exegesis was of paramount importance. In a startling break with tradition, he proposed that the Quran be reinterpreted so as to remove all apparent contradictions with physical reality. Since the Quran was the word of God, he argued, and since scientific truths were manifestly correct, any contradiction could only be apparent and not real.26 For him, Islam as a natural religion contained no dichotomy between the ‘word’ and the ‘work’ of God.27 He, therefore, suggested interpreting the Quran using the following methodology28:

  1. A close enquiry be made into the use, meaning and etymology of Quranic language so as to yield the true meaning of the word and passage in question.

  2. The criterion employed to decide whether a given passage needed metaphorical interpretation, and which of the several interpretations ought to be selected, is the truth established by science. Such truth is arrived at by aqli dalil (rational proof) and demands firm belief.

  3. If the apparent meaning of the scriptures conflicts with demonstrable conclusion, it must be interpreted metaphorically. In this, Sir Syed follows Ibn Rushd in his problem of reconciling maaqul (demonstrative truth) with manqul (scripture truth). Yet he makes clear that such metaphorical and allegorical interpretation is precisely what the Author of the scriptures intended.

  However, Syed Ahmed Khan never attempted to interpret a religious book, including the Quran, as a book of science. This is an effective antidote against the current belief that modern scientific discoveries can all be located in the Quran, and that there is nothing outstanding in the claims of present-day scientists. Maurice Bucaille, a French surgeon tu
rned spiritualist, began this trend with the publication of his exegesis, The Bible, The Quran, and Science (1990). He concludes that the Bible is often wrong in its interpretation of natural phenomena, while the Quran is invariably correct in anticipating most of the scientific discoveries of modern science. Syed Ahmed’s views were almost diametrically opposed to Bucaille’s fundamentalist interpretation of the Quran and science. He held all attempts to derive scientific truths from the Book as entirely misplaced.29

  Syed Ahmed was not alone in adopting this approach. Several intellectuals in other parts of the Islamic world tried to grapple with the problem on similar lines. Ibrahim Hakki, (1703-1780) the noted Turkish scholar of the late eighteenth century, whenever in need of clarification concerning the relationship of religion and science, always quoted the following hadis of the Prophet, ‘you are more knowledgeable on worldly matters’, and expressed the view that ‘explanations of material facts’ in non-religious matters should not be judged according to religious precepts.30 For Al Beruni, described by C.A. Nallino as ‘the greatest Muslim scientist’, the task of the Quran was not that of imparting secret knowledge, but of giving practical and ethical laws that had nothing to do with science. This was very clearly stated in an apparently unimportant and not often quoted passage in his Chronology where, arguing with those who wanted to derive from the Quran a more or less precise definition of the concepts of ‘day’ and ‘night’, he wrote: ‘Now if people say that God in this verse (Qur. II, 183) wanted to teach mankind the beginning of the day and night, which is simply absurd {muhal) … And how could we believe a thing the contrary of which is evident to our senses?’ This approach to the interpretation of the holy scriptures finds resonance in the famous line by Galileo Galilei in his letter to B. Castelli (21 December 1613) discussing the interpretation to give the passage of the Bible (Joshua X, 12-13) in which Joshua arrests the course of the sun. ‘I think it prudent not to bind the passages of the Holy Scriptures, forcing them, as it were, to affirm as true certain theories of natural sciences, the contrary of which could eventually be proved by our senses and necessary demonstrative reasons.’31

  Syed Ahmed has often been called an apologist in his interpretation of the Quran, particularly in his work Tafsir al Quran (first published in 1880). According to Baljon, one can trace a direct relation between his educational work and his apologetic efforts. As a consequence of the introduction of modern knowledge into Muslim India, he was charged with the task of evolving a new interpretation of Islam that would make it possible for Muslim youth to remain faithful to their religious convictions. Therefore, Quranic conceptions and teachings were formulated anew in terms of the rationalist-thinking Western world.32 However, this cannot be the only angle in evaluating Syed Ahmed’s apologetics. Perhaps he was not very concerned in the 1860s and 1870s about Muslim youth losing their faith under the spell of modernity. Rather, his sole mission was to redefine Islam, to reconcile it with modern science and encourage Muslim youth to cultivate it. For him, the acquisition of modern knowledge was primary, though he never lost sight of faith.

  Despite his own commitment to faith, his project of modernization was opposed by a large section of the Muslim ulema, who called him names, accusing him of being an atheist, heretic, Christian, neicheri (Urduized form of naturist), materialist, unbeliever and dajjal (antichrist); in every town and village fatwas were issued by the maulvis declaring him a kafir.33 Imdad Ali sought opinions of the ulema (Sunni as well as Shia) about declaring Syed Ahmed Khan a kafir. Ali Baksh Khan did this with greater success, enlisting the support of the ulema of the Hejaz who expressed their views with unrestrained virulence, attributing to Syed Ahmed Khan some views which were not really his.34 Ali Baksh Khan started two papers, called Nurul Imdad and Nurul Afaq, to counter Syed Ahmed’s Tahzib-ul-Akhlaq (1870).35 The ulema of Hejaz categorically declared: ‘This man is erring and causes people to err, or rather he is an agent of the devil, and wants to seduce the Muslims, and God regards him as a greater obstacle (Jitna) to true belief than the Jews and Christians.’36 Besides these fatwas, there appeared a whole literature of refutations and polemics against the New Light man, including two more papers, one from Muradabad called the Lauh-i-Mahfuz and one from Agra called the Tehrawin.

  The tradition of dubious fatwas in Islam can easily be traced back to mid nineteenth-century India, a tradition that has been trivialized further these days when fatwas are issued at the drop of a hat, confusing the already traumatized believers and inviting the ridicule of others. There is also a progressive tradition of fatwas in Islam, when the nineteenth-century Grand Mufti of Egypt, Muhammad Abduh, issued fatwas on postal saving interests as well as on modern scientific education, which the muftis today conveniently ignore. However, we need to confront them as boldly and vocally as was done by Syed Ahmed more than one hundred years ago. Succumbing to the whims of the semi-literate custodians of Islam will cause havoc to the future of young believers.

  Inspirations

  We need to digress a little here to understand some key influences in the formulation of Syed Ahmed’s views on religion and the need to reconcile them with science. His trip to England in the 1860s certainly inspired him in different ways, even though he was unable to read or write English. After his return from Europe, Syed Ahmed graduated to the Newtonian view of nature. It helped him adopt a rational approach towards fundamental Islamic convictions, including the role of the Prophet, revelation and the ‘proofs’ of prophecy—the miracles.37 This intellectual transformation earned him the sobriquet of neicheri, the naturist. Though there are not many references in his works to European writers of the period, the progressive and industrialized West was a permanent reference point in all his formulations. If we go by his own acknowledgement, Mu’tazilism and Shah Waliullah seem to be the two main inspirations.

  Mu’tazila (dissenters) was a radical school of rationalist philosophers of the eight/ninth centuries. It was declared a state doctrine by the Abbasid Caliphs al-Mamun and al-Mu’tassim and, more than ten centuries after its birth, Mu’tazilism played a key role in shaping the ideas of Muslim reformers of the European colonial era. It even inspired Hindu social reformers and modernizers like Rammohan Roy, whose Tuhfat-ul-Muvahidin (1805) is replete with Mu’tazila influences. Reacting against the Jabria orthodoxy of that period, the Mu’tazila sought a reconciliation of faith with reason.38 This synthesis of Muslim theology with Greek logic gave birth to a theological science, called ilm-ul-Kalam, which was to form the basis of Muslim scholasticism and dominate Islamic thinking for centuries to come.39 Syed Ahmed found Muslim religious thought confronted by the same complex situation which the Musalmans of the early middle ages had faced in their encounter with Greek philosophy:

  Today we are in need of a modern ilm-ul-Kalam, by which we should refute the doctrines of modern science and undermine their foundation, or show that they are in conformity with the articles of Islamic faith. When I am endeavouring to introduce these sciences among the Muslims then it is my duty to defend the religion of Islam and to reveal its original bright face.40

  This famous quote has invited the ire of many scholars. Syed Ahmed has been accused of prioritizing science over Islam. Ismail R. Al-Faruqi has even pronounced in one of his papers that Syed Ahmed belonged to the school that

  has little notion of what Islam is about, aside from the observance of ritual and some customs, and the overt expression of one’s Muslimness through self-declaration … Its so-called harmony with science and the principles of nature, therefore, cannot but be superficial, for it is not a harmony with the inner principles and values of Islam, but merely with formal adherence to Islam.41

  If one is oblivious to the historical context and the exigencies of politics, this criticism may seem convincing. Even outside the Indian subcontinent, the Muslim world was encountering the challenge posed by the triumph of Western power, which was equally the triumph of science at the turn of the century. Syed Ahmed was trying to do what his contemporaries were doing
in Turkey, Egypt and other countries. The differences in their approaches were governed by their respective political and social contexts.

  Apart from Mu’tazila, which had always been an irritant for the orthodox, Syed Ahmed was deeply influenced by an Indian mystic and scholar, Shah Waliullah (1703-61).42 Epitomizing the ‘modern full-dressed rationalistic revolt against the stupor of orthodoxy and the immobility of legal thought in Islam, Shah Waliullah can be easily recognized as the pioneer and chief source of inspiration.’43 For Iqbal, he was the first Muslim ‘who felt the urge of a new spirit in him’.44 What Syed Ahmed found most attractive in Waliullah’s programme was his call for a fresh interpretation of religion according to the needs of the time and place in order to justify it as a universal creed. Shah Waliullah opened the door of ijtihad45 which had been closed and sealed off many centuries earlier.46 Syed Ahmed also did exactly that. His commitment to ijtihad is reflected in a letter written to his friend and close associate Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk:

  Listen dear brother! This is not the time that I should conceal my conscience from you. I tell you frankly that if people will not give up blind adherence (taqlid) and will not search out that particular light which can be had from Qur’an and the reliable traditions of the Prophet and will not compare (reconcile?) religion with modern sciences, the religion of Islam will disappear from India. This anxiety for the well-being of Islam has forced me to carry on all these researches and I do not care for the traditional rut. Otherwise you know well that in my view, to remain a Muslim and to be entitled to Paradise it is enough to follow Maulvi Habbu, not to speak of the great jurists of Islam.47