Is Renaissance Possible in Islamic World Today?

by ASGHAR ALI ENGINEER

Why have I put a question-mark? Is there any doubt about it? Yes, very much. It would be too simplistic to assume that the potential for such a change already exists and it is only a push that is needed to bring about renaissance in the Islamic world. It did not happen even in the 19th century when conditions were more favourable, if not outright congenial. Very complex forces are at work in the contemporary world to admit this kind of change. Any simplistic assumption would not help. I myself stand for renaissance and would like to lead any such movement but I refuse to yield to the tendency to oversimplify things which only engender frustration.

What is renaissance? Renaissance was, to begin with, a literary and architectural move-ment which started in Florence, Italy in the early 16th century. The classical forms prevalent in the early Greek period were adopted and they became quite popular. Soon it spread to many European cities—forms were adopted from the pre-Christian period, in fact from the Roman period, when humanistic philosophies were prevalent and no doctrinal constraints preven-ted free expression.

Christianity, under Roman influence, became more superstitious and the Catholic Church became highly authoritarian and imposed so many doctrinal constraints and hence the renaissance movement came as a great relief, especially for creative writers, painters and architects. It was a period when a new consci-ousness was emerging in Europe and great writers, painters and architects were involved in ushering in this movement.

The conditions were very different in Islam and the Islamic world. Islam came to create a new consciousness, almost revolutionary in approach, with great emphasis on justice and equality. It brought about an era of knowledge so much so that the leading thinkers of the time described whatever had existed before Islam as having emanated from an era of ignorance and darkness. The conditions obtaining in Rome before Christianity were different from those prevailing in the Arab world before Islam.

The Arabs hardly had knowledge of philo-sophy or science or arts and architecture before Islam. Most of them could not even count beyond hundred. In all there were not more than 12 persons in Mecca who could read and write. They were highly proficient only in one form of art, that is, poetry and they had developed their oratorical skills. That is why when Islam came into existence with its great emphasis on knowledge, the pre-Islamic era was described by the Arabs as an era of darkness and ignorance.

Thus they had hardly anything to learn and revive from the pre-Islamic Arab traditions except poetry. It was done during the Umayyad period when pre-Islamic poetry was revived in the form of ‘Kitab al-Ghina’ in several volumes. There was nothing else to learn or revive from pre-Islamic knowledge. There was no formal philosophy or paintings or architecture as architecture in the desert was not possible. Thus renaissance, as far as the Arab society was concerned, was not possible.

♦

YES, we all know the great impact of knowledge—that was borrowed from Greek sources during the early Abbasid period—on the Muslim mind. A House of Wisdom (Bayt al-Hikmah) was established in Baghdad. As there was nothing to revive from pre-Islamic history, the Abbasids, when they came to know about the Greek knowledge of philosophy, mathematics and other sciences, bought the books giving the Roman rulers tons of gold loaded on several camels and brought back these books—translated into Arabic—on hundreds of camels.

For the Romans of that time, these books were of not much use as they were not interested in knowledge. Their status was similar to that of the pre-Islamic Arabs who were interested only in either the shajarah tree of their clans and tribes (that they could recount orally) or in poetry. They could neither read nor write. Now the Arabs as well as non-Arab Muslims were part of the greatest empire of the world and hence ignorance for them was a matter of shame. Thus they felt that they must acquire as much knowledge as they could, if not from indigenous sources then from foreign sources.

 Also, the Qur’an had laid great emphasis on ‘ilm’ (knowledge) and so they discovered the rich inheritance of knowledge from Greek sources and decided to acquire it and translate it into Arabic. When knowledge is needed, it is acquired from whatever source it is available. Great universities came into existence with libraries spread over buildings running into several kilometres. These would be the envy of any learned people in the world.

Again, it was during this period that a large number of people adopted what came to be known as I’tizal, a word which is said to be derived from Hasan Basri’s pronouncement of the words itazil minni (that is, get away from me) when he persisted in asking one question. Thus thereafter they came to be known as mu’tazilah, that is, those asked to get away from Imam Basri.

Mu’tazilah are also known as rationalists of Islam as they believe in accepting anything only if it satisfies the intellectual criteria. They maintain that something is good not because the Shari’ah says so but because reason confirms it to be good and something is bad not simply because the Shari’ah says so but because reason establishes it to be bad. The tradionalists maintain just the opposite, that is, something is bad just because the shari’ah says so even if reason says it is good.

♦

IT is also important to note that Muslims did not simply adopt this knowledge from Greek and Roman sources superficially but enriched it through their own creative sources and produced great philosophers, mathematicians, astronomers, physicians, medical experts and so on. The traditional Ulama were not happy by this revival of knowledge as for them anything outside the Qur’an was heresy. Thus during this period heated debates took place and one of the great theologians, Imam al-Ghazzali, wrote a remarkable book, ihya’ al-Ulum, that is, Revivification of Knowledge, which till today is an important source of traditional theology.

Once Ghazzali wrote a book, Thafut al-Falashifa (that is, Bewilderment of Philosophers), to ridicule Ibn Rushd, a great philosopher from Spain. Ibn Rushd immediately responded by writing a book, Tahafut Tahafut al Falasipha (that is, (Bewilderment of Bewilderment of Philosophers)

Therefore, it will be seen that there was great debate during those days between rationalists (philosophers) and traditionalists and ‘Ilm al-Kalam’ came into existence. ‘Ilm al-Kalam’ stands for dialectics and the traditional Ulama used rationalists to own the weapon, that is, reason, to attack them. Even in Europe the same thing had happened. After Reformation the Counter-Reformation movement had been launched by the Church.

In the beginning of this essay I had raised the question: is Renaissance possible in the Muslim world today? I had answered this question by saying that it is a most difficult and challenging task. In fact the Islamic world has already seen the era of renaissance. This is the contrast between the Islamic world and Western world. The Islamic world began with renaissance and fell into an era of darkness whereas the Western world began with jahiliyyah (an era of darkness) and launched its renaissance in the early 16th century and once it launched its renaissance, it continued with it and does not need another one now.

Unfortunately the Islamic world began with it, Europe inherited it and now the former is in need of knowledge from Europe. The lender needs to borrow now. During the Abbasid rule the rulers fully patronised the renaissance. They spent a great fortune to transfer knowledge into Arabic, the then lingua franca, and people had to learn Arabic to acquire advanced knowledge in social and physical sciences.
So the most important question is: why did the Muslim world lose its initiative while the Western world seized it? There are a number of reasons. While the traditional Ulama were taking control of the Islamic world, the rationalists were rebelling against the Church and trying to seize control. In the Muslim world the Mullas seized control as civil wars among Muslim rulers seriously weakened the Abbasid rulers and Fatimid rulers—a Shi’ah dynasty ruling over Egypt was weakened by the machinations of the Abbasids.

The Abbasids were finally destroyed by the Mongols of Central Asia in 1258 when lakhs of Muslims were killed in the most barbaric manner. Now for the Muslim world, not only was its glory destroyed but security became the main problem and in such uncertain conditions conservative forces took over and many maintain that the doors of ijtihad were closed. Ibn Taymiyyah issued his famous fatwa on jihad in those days. Thus ijtihad was replaced by jihad and the sword destroyed the pen.
After the Abbasids many regional powers came into existence with great glory but none could match the resources of the Abbasid regime. The noted historian, Toynbee, describes the Abbasid state as a universal state of Islam and most of the regional states paid their tribute to the Abbasids (except the Fatimids). The Abbasids had given not only a sense of security but also a sense of pride to all Muslims. Such conditions are required to achieve great heights of knowledge. Today we see same thing in the Western world: political stability and abundant resources—a part of those resources is put in research for the enrichment of knowledge.

♦

DO we see such a possibility in the Islamic world today? The Muslim world is supposedly poor and backward. If we want renaissance, we need great resources. First of all, we have to achieve hundred per cent literacy in the Islamic world. However, the figures are very disappointing. In the entire Arab world put together less books are read than in Greece, a small country in Europe. This shows the extent of illiteracy in the Arab world. In such conditions it is not easy to usher in renaissance in the Islamic world.

Also, in the other African and Asian countries where Muslims either constitute a majority or are present in substantial numbers as in India, illiteracy is still higher. India has a Muslim population of 150 million and but illiteracy and poverty are quite high, higher than one can imagine as convincingly shown by the Justice Sachar Committee set up by the Government of India. Justice Sachar has shown that Muslims are falling behind Dalits, the lowest and poorest caste of India.
Yet another yardstick could be the number of Noble Prizes awarded to Muslim intellectuals, especially in social and physical sciences. Muslim Laureates in subjects like physics, chemistry, economics and biology are far less than among the Jews who are just a few million in number. In physics there is just one Noble Laureate, that is, Dr Abdus Salam, and just because he happens to be an Ahmadi Muslim, Muslims remained indifferent to his receiving this honour.

Let us remember, we need a very different approach for ushering in renaissance—a non-doctrinaire approach. A doctrinaire approach is the very antidote to high achievements in the field of science. In the foregoing I have referred to the conflict between theologian Ghazzali and philosopher Ibn Rushd. Fortunately in this case the philosopher stood his ground firmly. In many cases they just wilt. The Islamic world today is dominated by theologians who are totally illiterate as far as science is concerned.

If any scientist does some leading research, our theologians issue a fatwa against it and force the scientist to recant. Here I am reminded of a beautiful story written in the early seventies by a Pakistani writer, Ghulam Abbas. The storyline is as follows: Pakistan has decided to send a mission to moon and all preparations are made, the date and time for landing on the moon are fixed, great celebrations are going on and the moment the mission lands on the moon the whole nation bursts into joy. However, when these celebrations are going on a theologian issues a fatwa: it is a kufr to send a mission to the moon as it amounts to interfering in Divine matters and this fatwa is followed by more fatwas and many Muslims come out on the streets to challenge the moon mission. Some even argue that the moon is sacred as with it the month of Ramadan and the month of Hajj begin; so how can a human mission land on it? The progressive Muslims challenge the orthodoxy and soon a civil war breaks out and within a few months the whole country is destroyed and only a desert is left. The story ends with some tourists passing through it on camel and the guide explaining to them: here was Pakistan which had sent a mission to the moon and it was destroyed in civil war between the orthodox and progressive forces. Now just this desert is left. Here are the ruins of the mosque from where the fatwa against the moon mission was issued.

Something similar did happen and the story came out to be true. Zia-ul-Haq captured power, issued the Hudud Ordinance followed by the Ordinance punishing a person with death for insulting the Prophet and now Pakistan is virtually controlled by the Taliban who cannot tolerate any dissent or difference of opinion.

For bringing in renaissance deep knowledge, and existence of differences of opinion and conflicting views are highly necessary. Knowledge advances through contestations and not through conformity. And our theologians want perfect conformity with their views and any dissent is strongly condemned and lands one in hell. Our mullahs and maulanas cannot tolerate any other interpretation of the Qur’anic verses.

Each sect of Islam claims monopoly of paradise and condemns all others to hell. How can Muslims become harbingers of renaissance in such despicable conditions? In India, Syed Ahmad Khan, who founded the MAO College (Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College) in Aligarh, was a great supporter of modern science and described science as the work of God and the Qur’an as the word of God; and he maintained, and rightly so, that the word of God cannot contradict the work of God, that is, the Qur’an and science cannot contradict each other.

Even then the mullahs condemned Syed Ahmed Khan as a nacheri, that is, one who worships nature and considers nacher (nature) as superior to religion. Today our Ulama may not oppose science as openly and blatantly as in the 19th century, but they have not been able to reconcile with it either. They still feel that religion is superior to science and the two are fundamentally contradictory to each other.
For them the mixture of religion, culture and primitive ideas about nature represents the final truth and anyone who challenges this truth challenges Allah’s authority. The problem is that these Ulama think their fallible human opinion is Divine opinion and any deviation from it is deviation from Divine opinion. Any rebellion against them is rebellion against Allah. They do not allow any change in any of the laws formulated by human beings in their own circumstances and on the basis of their own understanding of the Qur’an.

♦

TODAY the Shari’ah laws are causing a lot of problems, particularly for women. These Shari’ah laws are biased against women in particular because of the medieval cultural biases. There are very few Ulama who admit this; most of them consider these laws as immutable. Any attempt to remove the gender bias is also considered a deviation from the ‘divine’. Because of their medieval cultural bias and bookish knowledge of the Shari’ah they think what was written hundreds of years ago is final and unchangeable.

If changes have occurred in these laws in many Islamic countries, it is due to the efforts of secular rulers overcoming the resistance from theologians. There was hardly anyone who supported the change. In many cases after the change of regime the orthodox laws were brought back into operation. Progressive theologians like Muhammad Abduh were marginalised.

In order to launch a renaissance movement not only is a vision of the future necessary but also the theologians need to be equipped with contemporary developments in the field of knowledge. Our Ulama are not, even by exception, physicists, chemists or mathematicians. They do not even allow us to prepare a lunar calendar; they insist on sighting the moon with the naked eye.

All fatwas are issued on the basis of the text of medieval books and no one bothers to reflect on the new problems in the new context. Even today in our madrasa courses no change is thought necessary. In matters of ma’qulaat no change has been made. Under ma’qulaat we still teach the theories of Plato and Aristotle which are of historical importance for students of rational sciences alone.
Our Ulama in India (and the same is the case in other Muslim countries) still strongly resist any attempt at modernisation of madrasa education even if they are assured that as far as religious education is concerned, it will not be touched. Hundreds of millions of rupees allocated for the purpose are lying untouched and going waste. Also madrasas are run on sectarian lines and each sect has its own empire of madrasas and mosques.

It is also common that if triple divorce is pronounced in one sitting, they would rather advise the couple to go to Ahl-e-Hadis to solve their problem rather than change their own stand. How can two sects have two opposite stands in the matter? Our efforts to codify the Islamic Personal Law so as to minimise gender discrimination and bring into practice the Islamic spirit of gender justice, is being met with strong opposition and regarded as some kind of conspiracy.
Is this the way to bring about renaissance in Islam?

Recipient of the Right to Livelihood Award (alternative Nobel Prize), Dr Asghar Ali Engineer is the Chairman, Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai. He can be contacted at e-mail: csss@mtnl.net.in