Islamic Modernism
Islamic Modernism
Islamic Modernism
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ISLAMIC MODERNISM
MAZHERUDDIN SIDDIQI
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
180 MAZHERUDDIN SIDDIQI
the partition and forced it to undo the partition, not a voice was heard
from the Muslim side asking the British government to stick to the parti
tion of Bengal or restore it, after it was undone.
Both Molid. 'Abdoh and Sir Syed Afcmad Khan were political con
formists. They freely cooperated with the government they found in
control of their affairs. Their emphasis on education made them political
quietists. Although Mofrd. 'Abdoh, early in his career, was implicated in
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ISLAMIC MODERNISM 181
the A'rabi Pasha's revolt, he soon developed differences with the revolu
tionary party and gave his cooperation to the powers that be. He was
not a revolutionary by nature and his political conformity made it difficult
for him to cooperate with Jam?luddin Afghani, who was a political re
volutionary. Although intellectually, he came under Afghani's influence,
at heart he did not like Afghani's political activism. 'Abdoh's work
in Egypt, therefore, did not much influence the political development
of the country. Sir Syed Alimad Khan, the Indian reformer, went to the
extreme length of preaching loyalism. He even opposed the Pan-Islamic
movement, for this might embarass the British government in India.
Shibli charges him with having turned the Indian Muslims into political
cowards.2 This may or may not be true but his influence tended to inject
political quietism into the Muslim community of India. The Muslims
became politically apathetic. They were even afraid of attending the
Educational Conference convened by Sir Syed3 who had to reassure them
that no harm would come to them, if they attended the Educational
Conference. However, Sir Syed's opposition to Pan-Islamism did not
prevent the Muslims and the students of 'Al?garh, in particular, from
joining the Kh?l?fat agitation. But this was due more to a wave of reli
gious emotionalism than to the development of political consciousness
among the Muslims. Muslim political consciousness in the Indo -Pakistan
sub-Continent remains undeveloped to this day. For this political imma
turity of the Muslims part of the blame must be borne by Sir Syed's loyal
ism which prevented the Muslims from giving thought to their own future
in the sub-Continent. Unlike Sir Syed, Shibl?'s educational activity had
no loyalist implications. He did not see eye to eye with Sir Syed in political
matters and desired that the Muslims should actively participate in Indian
politics. For these political views, he had to pay a price and Nadwa, the
theological seminary he founded at Lucknow, was long suspected by the
British government of being hostile to its policies.
The major movement for the emancipation of the Muslim world was
led by Jam?luddin Afghani. By nature a revolutionary, he did not hold
a high opinion about the rulers of the various Muslim countries in his
time and since he found them under the influence of the Western imperial
ism, the main mission of his life was an attempt to change the existing
regimes in the Muslim world by installing into office men who could resist
foreign influence and domination and who could bring about effective
cooperation among the various national units into which the Muslim world
was divided, His efforts were not directed to changing the system of
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
182 MAZHERUDDIN SIDDIQI
government which was prevalent in the Muslim world but to changing men
who controlled the affairs of the Muslim countries. He did not see that
it was the system of government which was at fault. His method was not
to appeal to the masses and rouse them to the dangers of foreign influence
but to appeal to the patriotic and religious sentiments of the upper class
in each Muslim country. For this reason, he did not concentrate his
political activity on any one Muslim country but travelled to one Muslim
country after another, leaving behind him a group of intellectuals and poli
ticians steeped in his politico-religious ideas. Perhaps in the then existing
conditions of the Muslim world, Afghani followed the right course, for in
no single Muslim country mass political consciousness was so far developed,
as to enable him to change the system of government as distinct from the
personnel of the government. It is a wrong impression about Afgh?ni
that he stood for the unification of the Muslim world under one govern
ment or one ruler. What he wanted was that the various Muslim rulers
and nations should retain their separate identity but should cooperate with
each other in defending the Muslim world from foreign control, domi
nation and influence. Afghani did not succeed even in this modest attempt
for the foreign policies of the Muslim countries remained widely divergent
from each other. He did, however, succeed in implanting Pan-Islamic
sentiments among a few intellectuals and politicians.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ISLAMIC MODERNISM 183
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
184 MAZHERUDDIN SIDDIQI
In order to win back their freedom to legislate for the needs of the
new society, the modernists reject the theoratic trends in Muslim society
created by the preponderant influence of the 'Ulem?*. For example, Mohd.
'Abdoh says9 : "Isi?m threw its weight against the religious authorities,
bringing thetn down from the dominance whence they uttered their com
mands and prohibitions. It made them answerable to those they dominated,
so that these could keep an eye on them and scrutinise their claims,
according to their own judgement and lights, thus reaching conclusions
based on conviction, not on conjecture and delusion". This means that
there is no need of experts in religion who would dictate to the layman
of what to do and what not to do. Thus decisive power in matters of legis
lation comes into the hands of the laymen.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ISLAMIC MODERNISM 185
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
186 MAZHERUDDIN SIDDIQI
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ISLAMIC MODERNISM 187
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
188 MAZHERUDDIN SIDDIQI
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ISLAMIC MODERNISM 189
these attitudes and values do not take root or do not command respect,
political democracy remains like an empty shell, a body without the spirit.
The reason for this lack of appreciation of democratic virtues seems to be
that many modernists lived in the period when their countries had not
yet achieved independence from foreign domination and to them the desir
able form of government was merely a theoretical question. They did not
have the actual experience of the democratic form of government except
in so far as it was imposed upon them by foreign rulers. Now that many
of the Muslim countries have achieved independence, actual functioning of
democracy in these countries has shown that external forms of democracy
depend for their life and sustenance on the observance of democratic
values and it is because we have failed to cultivate those attitudes which
strengthen and nourish democracy that the democratic experiment in
Muslim countries has not met with the desired success.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
190 MAZHERUDDIN SIDDIQI
At4 Al?garh in India Sir Syed's views on religious issues were rejected
by the great mass of 'Al?garians. They respected him but were repelled
by his modernist views. One reason for this was that theological studies
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ISLAMIC MODERNISM 19!
in'Al?garh were left by Sir Syed under th? supervision of the conservative
IBerrm.' This was necessary to make 'Al?garh popular among the Muslims
and to attract Muslim youth coming from families where the hold of conser
vatism was very strong. Also Sir Syed made no eifort to raise a body of
intellectuals who could continue his work in the field of Muslim modern
ism. Although 'Al?garh produced great leaders, poets and writers, it did
not produce modernist scholars in the tradition of Sir Syed and Chir?g
'All. Th? result was that the 'Al?garh modernist movement initiated by
Sir Syed petered out soon after his death;
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
192 MAZHERUDDIN SIDDIQI
exposed them to attacks from the conservatives who could easily question
their integrity. If the modernists had remained independent of the
governments, and had an organization of their own, they could have exerted
a powerful influence on the affairs of the country. Secondly, soon after
the establishment of Pakistan, the conservative 'Ulema' began to found and
run theological seminaries of learning in the Deoband style. These
seminaries of learning or the Madressahs, as they are called, became the
stronghold of conservatism. Through these Madrassahs, the influence
of the conservative 'Ulema' already strong, became much stronger. Thus
in Pakistan the modernist view of Islam did not prevail.
Notes
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.170 on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:25:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms