What justification is there for the use of the expression Modern Islamic thought and how might it differ

from traditional modes of Islamic thinking?

In order to find a justification for the term modern Islamic thought it is first necessary to understand what is meant by traditional Islamic thought. Much like Brown (1996), Jackson (1996, 2001) and Lee (1997) I will characterise traditional Islamic thought as a process dominated by authenticity, authority and imitation whereby the principle driving forces were the madhabs, the Ulema and the system of taqlid. Jackson highlights how this process was heavily occupied by the search for established authorities throughout Islamic history and thus Islamic thought and jurisprudence was more concerned with authority than substance (1996:171). By recognising that ijtihad had ceased to exist and taqlid was the dominant force, Islamic thought became obsessed with the legacies left by jurists and scholars within each of the madhabs. The main authoritative sources within Islam were the Quran and Sunna, whereby through ijtihad, jurists would extract laws and meanings by direct interpretation of the texts. However, as it has been made apparent by the aforementioned authors, independent reasoning was overridden and monopolised by the traditions within each school of thought. Rather than having direct access to the Sources, jurists and scholars were confined to historical, otherwise seen as authoritative, interpretations of the Sources from which to formulate their judgements. Instead of being innovative traditional Islamic thought was imitative. Abu Rabi (2006) maintains that the need for a reform in the history of Islamic intellectual thought emerged in light of colonialism and the legacies left by the Imperialists, however Brown argues that from the beginning of the eighteenth century, reformist movements began to surface across the Muslim world, most noticeably challenging the role of hadith in the acquisition of law and moral principles (Brown, 1996:21-22). These movements were mostly concerned with the spirit of the Prophet and how throughout Islamic tradition Muslims had strayed from the pure, unadulterated sunna of the Prophet and were being poisoned by dangerous innovation (bida) and blind adherence (taqlid) to the teachings of the classical law books and commentaries (1996:22). By rejecting the classical system of regarding early writings on hadith as authoritative and binding, these reformist movements emphasised the need for a break from the tradition, through the re-evaluation and reinterpretation of classical Islamic law and thought. It is therefore reductive to state that the reevaluation of Muslim intellectual thought and practice is reactionary to colonialism and the penetration of modernity into Muslim countries as Abu Rabi proposes. Indeed, Western thought and modes of interpretation have played a significant role in the process of reassessing the history of

Islamic thought, but as it will be demonstrated there were some individuals, as early as the eleventh century, who were already questioning and breaking away from the process of taqlid and applying, what would today be considered, as modern mechanisms of thought in order to do so. As it has been stated traditional Islamic thought can be summarised as the prevalence of taqlid and the monopoly of the madhabs over interpretation and jurisprudence. So what characterises modern Islamic thought? I will argue that modern Islamic thought is distinct from the traditional in three ways; firstly, interpretations are no longer validated by authority but by the content which they hold and the context within which they emerge (personal ijtihad); secondly, individuals arrive at interpretations through direct access to the Quran and Sunna rather than adhering to the madhabs intellectual histories and traditions; and thirdly, modern Islamic thought means to apply rationalguided reason to accommodate the traditional and religious. In order to establish how justified the term modern Islamic thought is I will use the concept of authenticity, as espoused by Lee (1997), to validate these new modes of thinking Islam. This paper will outline the main characteristics of what is called modern Islamic thought and will compare and contrast them to those of traditional thought. It will emerge that the process through which knowledge and truth are obtained is the crucial characteristic which differentiates the modern from the traditional; that being the adoption of rational reasoning and the bypassing of the authorities of the madhabs. This will be demonstrated as existing in traditional Islamic thought by looking at the works of the early thirteenth century scholar Shihab al-Din al-Qarawi, followed by the question of modern authenticity within Islam, as Robert Lee (1997) proposes. The second section will focus on the acquisition of knowledge and understanding, through the hermeneutical model as espoused by Schleiermacher (Thiselton, 2009), and as demonstrated by Fazlur Rahman (1982). This should provide support for the notion of ijtihad being at the forefront of modern Islamic thought, and its authenticity will be measured using Lees (1997) four criteria. The final section will demonstrate how rational-guided reason is used today to accommodate the traditional and religious, and it will become apparent that modern Islamic thought is embracing the very principles of Enlightenment thought, is actively seeking the decentralisation of knowledge, and is breaking away from the legacies left by the authorities within Islamic history and tradition. In sum, where authority previously lay in the hands of the madhabs, modern Islamic thought has reformulated the very concept of authority and has contributed to the rational criticism of Islams intellectual tradition. As Eickelman stresses today even while teaching that Islam permeates all aspects of life, the formal principles of Islamic doctrine and practice are compartmentalized and made an object of studythe notion of Islam as dialogue, tolerance, and civil debate is gaining ground (Eickelman in

Dudoignon, A; Hisao, K and Yasushi, K. 2006:230). The paper will conclude by justifying the term modern Islamic thought based on the legacy left by the Enlightenment whereby morality, reason and rationality are no longer based on religious sources, but rather on personal and contextual understandings. Much like Christianity and the West underwent an intellectual transformation, it can be stated that Islamic intellectual thought is in the process of its own Enlightenment, based on the application of rational-guided reason in order to accommodate the traditional. The first argument for the justification of the term modern Islamic thought is that knowledge and interpretation are no longer validated by traditional authorities, but by the content which they hold, and the context within which they are revealed. In order to illustrate why this is the case, what characterised traditional thought, and to support the claim that there were challenges to the dominant system of taqlid, it is first necessary to turn to Jacksons analysis of al-Qarawis work on amm (universal expressions) and khass (specific expressions) during the thirteenth century. Jackson provides a detailed description of how al-Qarawi fought to change the traditional assumption that aam and khass bore a binary and relative relationship to each other (1996:175), and illustrates how al-Qarafi sought to reformulate the process by which expressions found in the Quran, were classified as either amm or khass. The topic of interest to this paper, however, is how al-Qarafi managed to restructure the classification of both amm and khass expressions through new interpretative measures. His proposed mechanism was that the primary relationship should not be between amm and khass expressions, but rather by placing mutlaq (unqualified) expressions at the centre of the discussion, and understanding the amm only in its relationship with the mutlaq. It is evident to see that, by simply introducing the mutlaq into the mechanism, al-Qarafi was able to bypass the juxtaposition between amm and khass (Jackson, 1997:177-178). By appropriating such a mechanism al-Qarafi was able to reorder and restructure the method of legislative interpretation whilst all the while adhering to the interpretative scope of the madhab. He neither challenged orthodox methods, nor did he provide a critique on the prevailing authority, but what he did manage to prove was that the whole process of interpretation and authority was not about the content which was extracted and the weight which it held, but rather that interpretation and the process of extracting laws and expressions, was confined to how predecessors operated and the results of their independent reasoning. By operating within the realm of taqlid, the Ulema at the time were simply adhering to the assumption that authority meant history and replication, rather than the present and innovation. What al-Qarafi did provided additional mechanisms for effecting needed adjustments to existing laws as opposed to a return to unmediated ijtihad (Jackson, 1997:192).

This interpretative method will become apparent when looking at the modern mechanisms of intellectual thought. It can be stated that it is the likes of al-Qarafi who helped to establish the grounds upon which modern thinkers can re-evaluate and reinterpret Islamic tradition; as Kurzman states they created an underlying theme for the Islamic experience (2002:6). However, although we will see how modern thinkers apply rationality to their renewals and reinterpretations of Islamic thought, there is a strong continuity of the Islamic tradition throughout many of their works. Most often, authentic sources validated in the past are used in support for modernist arguments, evident in Rashid Ridas reliance upon Hadith as a means of validation and support for renewal and reform within Islamic thought (Kurzamn, 2002:77-85). This use of traditional sources of authority has not restricted the modern thinkers to the orientations of the madhabs or a system of taqlid. Instead, ijtihad has become the main driving force, and by broadening its scope to reach any person and individual, authority to interpret no longer lies in the hands of the traditional scholars and Ulema. An example of Muhammad Rashid Ridas though is mentioned in his call for the renewal of Islam and its tradition; The renewal of religion means renewing its guidance, clarifying its truth and certitude, refuting the innovations and extremism that its followers accrue, or their reluctance in upholding it and following its rules in managing the interests of human and the laws of society and civilizationThis is the meaning of renewal and renewing, and it leads us *to conclude] that both the new and the old have their place, and it is a matter of ignorance to prefer one over the other (Rida in Kurzman, 2002:81). Another example is found in the concept of authenticity. I will attempt to demonstrate how the search for authenticity (Lee, 1997) has shifted from a collective cultural and religious authenticity, to individual authenticity, which is impacting on the methods and interpretations practiced and extracted within modern Islamic thought. Traditional authenticity was concerned with Islams past and was centred on the need to replicate. It is therefore possible to make a connection between the system of taqlid and authenticity; for both were based on the same principles of imitation and replication. Authenticity in traditional Islamic thought could thus be considered as synonymous with orthodoxy and the system of taqlid; to be authentic necessitated an adherence to the respective orthodox schools of thought and interpretations were confined to the system of taqlid. Modern Islamic thought however, has challenged the very concept of authentic being orthodox, and has given rise to numerous scholars who all espouse different methods of interpretation, which are considered as authentic, within modern Islamic thought. Before modern intellectuals are discussed, however, it is worth briefly mentioning the legacies left by movements such as Ahl-i-Hadith in

nineteenth century India. Apart from arguably being the most radical challengers of Islamic classical tradition, through the literal interpretations of hadith and Prophetic Sunna, the movement broke away from the prevailing system of taqlid and authority. Rather than adhering to the system and thus requiring established authorities to validate their interpretations and readings, the Ahl-i-hadith insisted that texts can be learnt and understood without intermediary, and as a result they advanced a democratization of religious knowledge and challenged the whole interpretative process of the scholars (Brown, 1996:32). This is significant for it highlights the shift in methodology and the acknowledgement that authenticity and authority no longer rested in the hands of the established schools of thought and Ulema. However, for the Ahl-i-Hadith, authenticity was heavily reliant upon the Sunna and the ritualistic practices carried out by Muslims. In this sense their authenticity can be defined as how din relates more to how one lives than to what one believes (Asad, 1993:219), or more simply put, a collective authority. Modern Islamic thought, however, holds a different view on authenticity. For Lee, authenticity is determined by and consists of four main components; existential particularity, presumption of human autonomy, superior knowledge of the self and the ability to make choices in relation to context (1997:13-17). If we are to use these as the criteria for establishment, it is evident to see how authenticity no longer requires validation by authority, or an adherence to the established tradition. Modern authenticity is more concerned with finding underlying bases for common knowledge, and recognises that action must reflect individual choice within concrete circumstances (1997:14), rather than universal moral judgements. For modern Islamic intellectuals the most prominent aspect of authenticity is found in their approach to interpret texts as context specific and thus demonstrating both existential particularity, human autonomy, knowledge of the self and the ability to make judgements in relation to contexts. Unlike the tradition, modern Islamic thought distinguishes between the spirit of Islam and what is explicitly written in Scripture, otherwise understood as the ideals and the contingent (Rahman, 1982). It could be stated that modern Islamic thought thus presupposes a priori Lees four criteria of authenticity which enables individuals to accept, challenge, refute, and reform traditional Islamic thought, in both its authority and authenticity. As Abu-Rabi stresses, it is important to recognise that although Islamic thought is often considered as one bloc topic, each intellectual history has responded to a unique set of circumstances and criteria that have in turn defined it over the past several decades (2006:2). In this case, the works of Ahl-i-Hadith can be considered as reflecting the social and intellectual forces and players in Indias need for the preservation of Islamic identity (2006:3). It could thus be possible to assert that this reformist movement was motivated by the need to protect Islam, and shield it from Western and non-Islamic penetration, rather than seeking new methods and solutions of accommodation. The

greatest difference between reformist movements and the modern movements and thinkers is that the identification of modern values was not present in the former but features heavily in the latter. Kurzman identifies the modern thinkers according to three principles; the broadening of the scope of ijtihad, the right to bypass the madhabs, and lastly to reconcile the authoritative sources (Quran and Sunna) with human reason (Kurzman, 2002:9). Modern thought is typically associated with science, reason and objectivity, and it is mainly through the adoption of reason and objectivity that modern Islamic thought has managed to advance and evolve from the traditional. This leads to the argument that modern Islamic thought no longer relies on the validation of the madhabs and traditional Ulema, but that it has become a personal and interpretative process bestowed upon each individual. In the same way as traditional thought was characterised by the system of taqlid, modern thought consists of individual ijtihad. Here too, it is possible to recognise the a priori acceptance of Lees concept of modern authenticity. This is characterised by the interpretative process of hermeneutics, as espoused by Schleiermacher, otherwise known as the doctrine of understanding (Thiselton, 2009:149). The emphasis of this model is on the inability of man to implicitly understand and gain knowledge of any given text. This would necessitate a complete and complex understanding of both the context within which the text was written and an understanding of the author of the text. Due to the infeasibility of the matter, Schleiermacher emphasises that in order to reach a sound understanding of a text, it must be understood in terms of its individual parts, which in turn will impact on the understanding as a whole. The whole method of interpretation is thus a continual spiral of interpreting individual components whose understanding will lead to the wider understanding of the text as a whole. In this sense, interpretation is considered a science, whereby an understanding is only ascertained through the application of the right methodology. This has profound resonations in the domain of Islamic thought, where a reading of Scripture is now practiced as a scientific endeavour, in extracting moral and spiritual messages. One of the most prominent Islamic thinkers on this subject is Fazlur Rahman, who adopts the hermeneutical model in order to reach a modern and relevant understanding of Islamic Scripture. It is the recognition of the importance in the methodology of reading Scripture which is the most significant asset of Rahmans contributions. By emphasising the need to primarily understand the language and principles of the Quran and Sunna alongside the socio-historical context within which they were revealed, Rahman approaches the sources as objective texts rather than Sacred Scripture, and exercises both superior knowledge of the self and making choices in relation to context (Lee, 1997:16-17). He states the need to refer back to the individuals reality in order to develop laws and principles suited to the modern context. It is only through an understanding of the context within which the Quran and Sunna emerged, and the context within which the individual is in, that a

modern and relevant understanding of Islam can emerge. This approach is significant and challenges the very roots of Islamic intellectual tradition, through the rationalisation of the texts, and the realisation of contexts both then and now. By approaching Scripture directly and applying this double movement or hermeneutical model, an individual is granted the tools with which to operate independently from the madhabs, and to bypass the traditional Ulema as the keepers of authority and knowledge. Modern Islamic thought thus espouses and promotes individual interpretation and the acquisition of knowledge through methodologies, different to those of the tradition, in an authentic fashion. It could also be argued, that within the Ulema themselves, there has been a shift in methodology and challenges to the authority upon which they rely. As previously mentioned, authority lay in the hands of the traditional schools of thought, and the Ulema and jurists who operated within them, with the prevailing method of interpretation and acquisition of knowledge being taqlid. I have argued that ijtihad characterises modern Islamic thought, and the use of interpretative methods and the assumed a priori authenticity, sets modern thinkers apart from their traditional predecessors. However, by looking at the Ulema today, and the means by which they are granted authority, the modernising process of Islamic thought is rife within the establishments. In order to understand how there has been a shift in Ulema authority, and how this has influenced the characteristcs of modern Islamic thought, attention must turn to the concepts of informed reason and rationality. I will use Emmanuel Kants work on reason and rationality, in order to illustrate how modern Islamic thought has evolved by using the foundations of rational thought and criticism, which should in turn support modernists authenticity. Langman states that the ideological authority of purposive reasonbecame a new basis for domination in the wake of Enlightenment Europe (Langman in Goldstein, 2006:286). This naturally led to anything or anyone who stood opposed to the Enlightenment discourse being considered irrational or preaching anti-modern irrationality (2006:286). This was, and still is to a certain extent, manifested most strongly within the Islamic world. It is possible to state that there is a general assumption that the tradition is opposed to the modern, and more explicitly, that religion is opposed to reason. The tensions between tradition/modern and religion/reason can be analysed through the concept of maturity as espoused by Kant. As Asad states intellectual and moral maturity, Kant tells us, consists in the ability to use ones own understanding without the guidance of another (1993:202), and stresses the need for a separation of the laws laid out by the state, and rational argument, the latter which he maintains is wholly private. By directly separating law and rational thought, authorities are no longer endowed with the ability to promulgate laws based on rational

thought, which was heavily endowed with religious principles. As a result, the rationality of traditional Islamic thought can be questioned, for it was the Ulema and madhabs who monopolised not only legislative power but also the claim that rational knowledge was based on Scripture. Although there remains a specific Christian history and foundation within European political and social thought, as Asad states, even if they have a religious origin, human rights are no longer based on religious reason. It could be said that, that alone, gives them a more rational foundation (1993:234). This can be directly applied to the Muslim intellectual sphere for it is the rationality of the modern intellectuals which is being applied to the traditional sources of Islam. In essence it could be said that there is a shift in methodology; what used to be traditional reasoning applied to the current situations, within the interpretative scopes of the Ulema and madhabs, has become the current methods of rationality applied to the traditional. It can, consequently, be said that modern Islamic thought has its roots in Islamic tradition, much like European thought finds its roots in Christianity, but what is significant is the application of reason and rational thought to understand, evaluate and apply the traditional to the modern context. Authority today can thus be considered as lying in the hands of those who use modern rationality to explain and legitimise the traditional, and who do so authentically (as espoused by Lee, 1997); which I maintain is the foundation upon which modern Islamic thought can be differentiated from the traditional, and which provides a concrete justification for the use of the term. An example within modern Islamic thought, of the application of reason and rationality to Islam, is demonstrated by Abd al_qadir al-Jazairi who states that people should not follow the works and conclusions of good individuals, but should rather seek answers for themselves, based on an understanding of a statement in its context and as applicable to the individual (al-Jazairi in Kurzman, 2002:133-137). Not only does this require informed reasoning by the individual but it challenges the idea of authority and authenticity within orthodoxy. In light of this is possible to pose the question; who are the modern intellectuals? Having looked at the shifts in authority and authenticity it should be apparent that modern Islamic thought is now a fluid discourse and is accessible to all individuals. As Eickelman asserts; in the contemporary Muslim majority world, those with training in the formal religious sciences remain important but are increasingly complemented by lawyers, engineers, and other lacking formal religious training.formal education is often less significant than the ability to communicate effectively in different media and social classes (Eickelman in Dudoignon, A, Hisao, K and Yasushi, K, 2006:289). Modern intellectuals are redrawing the boundaries of Islamic thought and its application to public and private life, which could now be considered as an objective discourse, in the eyes of many

Muslims. Modern intellectuals have challenged the very foundations upon which Islamic authority relies and have sought to breach the monopoly of traditional scholars over Islamic interpretation (Kurzman, 2002:13). As Harvey states; Enlightenment thought embraced the idea of progress, and actively sought to break with history and tradition which modernity espouses. It was above all, a secular movement that sought the mystification and decentralization of knowledge and social organization in order to liberate human beings from their chains (Harvey in Abu-Rabi, 2006:17). Modern Islamic thought is embracing the very principles of Enlightenment thought, and is producing a wave of scholars and individuals who are actively seeking a decentralisation of knowledge, and who are breaking away from the legacies left by the authorities within Islamic history and tradition. As it has been demonstrated there is a strong case for the use of the term modern Islamic thought , and it can be differentiated from the traditional modes of thinking by recognising the shifts in authority, authenticity and rational reason. Rather than applying religious reason to their surroundings, modern Muslim intellectuals and individuals, are applying rational reason to their interpretations and understandings of the religion and tradition.

Bibliography Abu-Rabi, I. (2006) The Blackwell Companion to Contemporary Islamic Thought, Malden: Blackwell Asad, T. (1993) Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Power in Christianity and Islam, London: The John Hopkins University Press Brown, D. W. (1996) Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Eickelman, D. F. (2006) Clash of Cultures? Intellectuals, their publics and Islam in Intellectuals in the Modern Islamic World: Transmission, Transformation, Communication eds. Dudoignon, A; Hisao, K and Yasushi, K. Oxon: Routledge Jackson, S. A. (1996) Taqlid, Legal Scaffolding and the Scope of Legal Injunctions in Post-Formative Theory Mutla and Amm in the Jurisprudence of Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi, Islamic Law and Society, 3/2, pp.165-192 Jackson, S. A. (2001) Kramer versus Kramer in a Tenth/Sixteenth Century Egyptian Court: PostFormative Jurisprudence between Exigency and Law, Islamic Law and Society, 8/1, pp.27-51 Kurzaman, C. (1998) eds. Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc. Kurzman, C. (2002) eds. Modernist Islam 1840-1940: A Sourcebook, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc. Langman, L. (2006) From the Caliphate to the Shaheedim: Toward a Critical Theory of Islam in Marx, Critical Theory an Religion: A Critique of Rational Choice, eds. Goldstein, W. S. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers Lee, R. D. (1997) Overcoming Tradition and Modernity: The Search for Islamic Authenticity, Oxford: Westview Press Rabinow, P. (1991) The Foucault Reader, London: Penguin Rahman, F. (1982) Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition, Chicago: Chicago University Press Thiselton, A. C. (2009) Hermeneutics: An Introduction, Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company Virvidakis, S. (2007) The Problem of Philosophical Knowledge in Kants Critique of Pure Reason: How To Make Theoretical Reason Intuitive in Kant: Making Reason Intuitive, eds. Gondeli, K; Kontos, P and Patellis, L. New York: Palgrave Macmillan