The
Age of Reason
Thursday, March 13, 2008
http://thoughts-of-universal-kind.blogspot.com/2008/03/age-of-reason.html
It is always
pleasant to learn something new in any area, but especially pleasant if it
concerns Islamic history, onto which many in the West, so arrogantly pronounce
judgements by assuming to know everything. Recently I have made an unexpected
discovery while searching for the sources of Islamic Fundamentalism.
Islamic Reformism was a significant movement occupying minds of almost all
ruling and clerical classes who clearly saw muslim countries lose superiority,
economies and finally independence itself to the West. All leading voices of
the 19 century argued for reform. The challenge of 19 century was crucial – how
to compete with the West and yet stay independent, but the stakes went higher.
It was obvious that Europeans would invade and rule directly, if urgent
solutions were not found. While Ottoman Empire survived and staved off defeat,
its Egyptian vassals under heirs of moderniser Muhammad Ali did
not. After it had build the Suez canal, Egypt found itself – after heavy and
indiscriminate borrowing – directly in depth to French and British banks and
became insolvent. A military coup instigated by officers of newly modern
Egyptian army was also the first attempt at nationalization to save Egypt from
foreign creditors. It had failed and in 1882 British occupied Egypt under
pretext of protection of Suez.
Basically it was becoming clear that despite its lip service to liberty for
all, the West had no intentions to give liberty to other races and was on the
road to enslaving them all. In these conditions there had to be two solutions:
either to fight a losing battle of the sword or reform internally to be able to
compete later. At the time answer was the latter, and beyond local battles with
the West, there was no “jihad”-inspired backlash. Terror as the method of war
was not yet born.
Two figures loomed large on the Sunni Islamic Reformism side in Middle East,
and at the time quite known in Europe – like Tariq Ramadans of their day– Jalal-ad-Din
Afghani and Muhammad
Abduh.
Reformers like them said that Muslim societies had fallen behind the west
because they had strayed from the core strength of Islam which celebrated
science and reason and abhorred superstition. They had become antagonistic to
change ossified and did not innovate with the result of the West racing ahead.
There was generally little resistance to the idea that things had to change
among all ruling classes and progressive clergy.
Abduh – who after being exiled and arrested by British eventually returned to
become a Grand Mufti of Egypt – was also a consistent believer in the triumph
of reason and berated a rigid ideology based on uncritical interpretations of
hadiths, and went even further indicating importance of scrutiny and free
speech to question many tenets. Both men strongly opposed irrational tendencies
in Islam and opposed mystical Sufism which they saw as not scientific and full
of ossified rituals. They have probably despised the folk religion with its
cult of saints and holy places and thought of ways to challenge it through
modernized education.
Now you might thing that the Islamic Reform movement was not opposed to the
West, but it was not so. It was Sharia bound traditionalist headed by
mainstream ulema, who in their stupor were ready to not only oppose but support
foreign rule, provided their traditions were respected. Reformists invariably
sided with nationalist cause. It was true in Russia (including my native
Azerbaijan, whose Muslim democrat leaders eventually formed a republic in
1918), India and Egypt. Reformism in India created Iqbal and Ali Jinna and Turkish one
Young Turks and their heir – Ataturk.
Reformists ultimate goal was the Islamic renaissance akin to the Arabic Golden
age where spirit of scientific inquiry flourished; their future did not have
not skimpily dressed women and binge drinking - they still saw the West as
flawed in many respects. Afghani was also called a father of Pan-Islamism,
which was a pro-Caliphate movement that can be constructed as a early version
of Islamic “Fundamentalism” and Hizb-ut-Tahrir party. He toured many Muslim and
European countries and served as an advisor to Ottoman Sultan and king of
Afghanistan in their reforms.
Because some Reformists used to advocate a return to pious practices of Salafis
– the early followers of the Prophet who, the Reformists believed, were guilded
by Reason – these Reformists called themselves Salafis too, just like today’s
West adversaries.
So in a twist of fate modernizers of 19 century became heirs to puritanical
Salafis of today. Of course, on any Jihadi website the Reformists of 19 century
are criticized as Jewish sell-outs – in one, Afghani is called a Judeo-Mason
for example - but links between later Muslim Brotherhood and early Islamic
Reform movement are obvious. Both were born out of desire to understand reasons
for failure and derived their strength from critical and untraditional
interpretation of the scriptures. However, the answers they have provided were
different. There was the reason for the change of emphasis – it was because 20
century was a disaster and disappointment for Muslims, especially its second
half, where it became clear that reforms had not worked and the West firmly and
unconditionally established itself as the ruler of the World. Slowly but surely
those who supported the modernism and innovation were tainted by association
with the oppressors. This was the beginning of a new and more difficult
chapter.
Posted by Hazar
Nesimi at 8:41
AM
