The question of Islam’s compatibility with modernity (and other interrelated aspects like democracy, rationality, nationalism etc.) has been debated from more than last two centuries. In the Sub-Continent, this debate started with British imperialism (‘British Raj’, 1857-1947). Muslims responded to the imperialism through different means, scholars like Chirag Ali (d.1895), Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (d.1898), Allama Iqbal (d.1938), Abul Kalam Azad (d.1958), Shibli Numani (d.1914), Mumtaz Ali (d. 1974), Syed Mawdudi (d.1979), Amin Ihsan Islahi (d.1997), Abul Hassan Ali Nadwi (d.1999), and others gave them critical response by their scholarly works. The debate is still relevant and manifested in different forms, from nationalism to secularism, and from rationality to progressive thought. A plethora of literature has been produced on the question—mostly on reconciliatory approach—and a new supplement added to this prevailing literature, with some distinctive characters, is Parray’s Mediating Islam and Modernity.
The main objective of the book is to analyse the thoughtsand the vision of three South Asian ‘Pioneering Modernists’—namely Sir SayyidAhmad Khan, Muhammad Iqbal and Abul Kalam Azad—on some contemporary crucialissues, like Muslim responses to Imperialism, Ijma and Ijtihad, Islam-democracydiscourse, and other inter-related themes. The book combines the scholarship ofpast and present, carries together and examines the thoughts and vision ofthese ‘pioneering’ South Asian reformers with the broader context, andhighlights their relevance in contemporary era. The book is theoretical innature and adopts descriptive, critical and comparative methodology. Itcomprises of four (4) chapters, excluding reface and Epilogue, with a Forewordby the Professor Irfan Ahmad (a renowned anthropologist presently at Max PlanckInstitute, Göttingen, Germany) titled ‘On writing History’ in which he raisesfundamental questions on history, history writing and seeks to push thehistorian to go beyond the established binaries like ‘Gentoo vs gentleman,barbarian vs civilized, traditional vs modern, developed vs backward, terroristvs democrat and so on’.
In Chapter one, “Introduction: British Colonialism and’Pioneering Modernists’ of Colonial India on Reconciling ‘Islam and Modernity'(pp.1-28), the author provides a sketch of emergence and later developments in’modernist/ reformist’ thought in South Asia, with an overview of Britishcolonialism and Muslim response(s), and focus on contextualizing the terms likemodernity and traditions. The author defines Modernism as ‘a movement toreconcile Islamic faith with modern values’. He argues that Modernism emergedin the mid 19th century as a response to the European colonialism, ‘whichpitched the Muslim world into crisis’ (p.2). In India the three broad responsesto British Imperialism came from ‘traditionalists’; ‘reformistsproto-fundamentalists’; and ‘Modernists: the last one encouraged to produce anew synthesis of Islam within the frames of tajdid (revival) and islah(reform).
The second chapter, “Muslim Responses to Imperialism:Contribution of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan as a Muslim Modernist-cum-EducationalReformer” (pp. 29-43), explores his major reaction(s) to European colonialismthrough his socio-educational programs with twofold objectives: ‘response toBritish imperialism, and to change the intellectual, political and economicdestiny of Muslims in India. He believes that ‘Islam is in full correspondencewith reason’ (p.34) and christened a new theology of Islam by accepting thewestern thought. In order to put hiseducational programmes into practice, he established Aligarh Scientific Society(1864) ‘translated forty (40) European books dealing with different themes,Modern school at Ghazipur (1886) – to promote and establish educationalcommittees in northern India, Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental Collage (1874) atAligarh, modelled on Oxford and Cambridge University, ‘it soon assumed a formof and a personality of its own’ and in 1920 became Aligarh Muslim University(AMU), and the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental Educational Conference (1886) – forthe promotion of western education in Muslim India.. The author has alsopresented an assessment (both appreciation and criticism) of Sir Sayyid’seducational reforms in the views of various scholars, both Muslims as well asnon-Muslims. The author argues that Sir Sayyid is a source of inspiration forall reformists and modernists, not only for South Asian, but for the European,American and others across the globe.
Third chapter discusses “Islamic Modernist and ReformistThought in Colonial India: A Comparative Study of Sir Sayyid and MuhammadIqbal” (pp. 44-80). The chapter focuses on the religio-political thought andthe views and vision of Sir Sayyid and Iqbal collectively, arguing that ‘inSouth Asia, it was Sir Sayyid and Iqbal, who pioneered the modernist visionduring in the 19th and 20th centuries’ (p.45). Sir Sayyid, like Jamal al-Din Afghani and Muhammad Abduh in the MiddleEast, stressed on a modern Ilm Kalam (scholastic theology), and Iqbal calledfor the ‘reconstruction’ of religious thought and declared Taqlid as a dogmaticslumber. The author describes Sir Sayyid in three categories: “(i) ‘as anarchitect of two nation theory’ (ii) ‘as a modernist thinker’, and (iii) ‘as aheretic or deviant’” (p.46). The author argues that Sir Sayyid believes that’Islam is full accordance with nature’ (modern science), and thus advocated aslogan: “Islam is nature and nature is Islam” (p.47). The chapter mainly focuses on theircontribution to the dynamic concepts of Ijma and Ijtihad, Religion–science(reason) relationship and compatibility of Islam and democracy. The chapteralso highlights the criticism of Sir Sayyid religious thought by scholars likeFazlur Rahman (d.1988) who believed that ‘he was not the keen religiousthinker, nor primarily and deeply religious, but was led by the inner logic ofMuslim intellectual history to justify his cultural progress attitudetheologically’ (p.56).
The next portion of the chapter focuses on Iqbal’s views onIjma and ijtihad and Islam-democracy debate. The author contends that unlikeSir Sayyid, Iqbal was more critical to the western thought. He believed thatmajor reason for the Muslim decline was ‘the inability or unwillingness to thesubject the legal system of intellectual scrutiny, particularly with referenceto ijtihad’. The author contends that Iqbal indeed criticized democracy, but henever rejected the whole idea. In fact, he was against imperfections of modern/western democracy, but believed that democracy is the best form of governmentfor Muslim community, and Islam as an egalitarian faith with no rooms for anyclergy.
In the fourth chapter, “‘Islamic Democracy’ or ‘DemocraticIslam’: Re-Reading Abul Kalam Azad on Shura-Democracy Nexus” (pp. 81-104) theauthor highlights Azad believed that Shura-cracy is as an alternate for westerndemocracy, and he uses the term ‘Islamic democracy’ (Islami Jumhurriyah) forit. Furthermore, the author makes comparative analyses of Azad’s exegetic work(Tarjuman al-Qur’an) with some prominent 20th century (Urdu) exegesis. This isfollowed by Epilogue which is aptly titled as “Considering the Past and Lookingto the Future” (pp. 105-114).
The book not only analyses the understating of Sir Sayyid,Azad and Iqbal on Islam and modernity, but reveals their relevance in thepresent times through wide variety of Urdu, English source-material, and variedinterpretations. In sum, Parray’s Mediating Islam and Modernity highlights someof the contemporary crucial issues of diverse nature, within the broadercontext of present scenario and thus, will be helpful for the students andspecialists not only in the fields of Islamic Studies but South Asian history,anthropology and other related subjects.
Owais Manzoor Dar, IS Doctoral Candidate, Department ofIslamic Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.