Search for “Modernity” by itself is a commendable desire and a
natural urge of humankind. If this urge was not there, man would not have
reached from stone-age to atomic era, could not have gained access to
aeroplanes and spacecrafts from camels and bullock carts, nor would have
progressed to electric bulbs and search lights from wax candles and earthen
lamps. All these material advancements and scientific achievements, which have
put nooses on the planets and conducted their buckets to the bottom of sea, are
in fact an importunate effect of man’s inherent trait that he is a “modernist”
and avaricious of “better to best” achievements.
Hence Islam, being a natural religion, is not opposed to modernism
as far as it implies to be modem in simple sense of the word. Very often it has
been appreciated and given due encouragement. Particularly the use of latest
and newer methods in industry and craft and war technologies is proved from
prophetic traditions. On the occasion of battle of Ahz’ ab when the tribes of Arabia
joined together and raided Madinah, a renowned companion Salman F’arsi
suggested a new technique for its defence which was never practised in Arabia
before. He suggested digging of a trench around the city. This was hailed by
the Prophet (PBUH) and he himself took part in digging the trench (Al-bidayah
wan-Nih’ayah 4:95)
On the advice of Salman F’arsi the Prophet used two new weapons in
the battle of Ta’if which, according to some narration, were constructed by
Salman himself. One of them was catapult which served as cannon of the time;
the second was “Dababah” the Tank of the time (Al-bidayal
wan-Nib’ayahy 4:95). Not only this, but Ibn-e-Kathir has reported that the
Prophet (PBUH) had sent two of his companions, namely ‘Urwah Ibn Mas’ud and
Ghitan Ibn Salmah to the city of Jarash in Syria to learn the techniques of
manufacturing Dababas, Maujaniq (catapult) and Dhabur. Jarash was the famous
industrial town of Syria and Dhabur was a weapon similar to Dababa which was
used by Romans in their wars. These two companions could not take part in the
battle of Hunayn and Ta’if because they were in Syria learning this technology
(Tabqat-e-Ibn-e-Sa’ad vol 2, p. 221, Tarikh Tabri p. 353 vol. 2., Al-bidayah
wan-Nih’ay ah p. 345 vol 4).
Ibn-e-Jarir has reported that the Prophet (PBUH) had asked the
people of Madinah to promote agriculture by increased cultivation and use of
camel skulls in their fields for increased production (Kinzul-’Ammal p. 199
vol: 2).
According to one narration the Prophet advised people to promote
their business by increasing trade in clothes because a cloth-merchant always
wishes that the people remain prosperous and free from worries (Kanz-ul ‘Animal
p. 199, vol. 2).
Also he persuaded many people to go to ‘Omman and Egypt for trade
(Kanz-ul-’Ammal p. 197, vol. 2)
To get the benefits of agriculture and minerals he said:
(Seek your living in the hidden wealth of the Earth) (Kanz-ul
‘Ammal p. 197, vol. 2).
The people of Arabia were ignorant of naval fleet, but the Prophet
(PBUH) had joyously predicted that some of his people will travel through the
sea for Jeh’ad in the way of Allah as if they are kings on a throne (Sahih
Bukhari, kitab-ul-Jeh ad). He described several virtues of the first naval
fleet of the Muslims. Consequently Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (RA) prepared the first
naval fleet during the caliphate of Hadhrat Usman Ghani (RA). This enabled the
access of Muslims to Cyprus, Rhodes, Crates and Scicily and then the entire
Mediterranean Sea came under their command.
Hadhrat ‘Amr bin ‘Aas (RA) in the year 8 AH used the method of
“Blackout” during the war ofZat-us-salasil against Lakbrn and Juzam, and
ordered his troops that there should be no lights nor any fire kindled for
three nights in the battlefield. When the troops reached Madinah and the Prophet
(PBUH) came to know of it he inquired the reasons for this action. ‘Amr bin
‘Aas replied “0 Messenger of Allah, my troops were less in number than the
enemy troops, hence I ordered to keep all lights off at night lest the enemy
may boost its morale by finding the low count of our troops”. The Prophet was
pleased with this tactics and offered his thanks to Almighty Allah (Jam’a
-ul-Fawa’id p. 27, vol.2).
These were the few examples of the Prophetic era which have been
casually mentioned. The aim of this description was to emphasize that Islam has
not objected to any modern advancement just because it is recent and modem.
Rather it has encouraged modernity for rightful purposes and within rightful
limits.
However, in its own sphere it remains a reality that whereas
modernity has elevated man’s material status to great heights, given him newer
inventions and provided him with better means of comfort and ease in life, it
has, at the same time, caused man to suffer from many depravities and led him
to many disastrous ends. It is due to the same modernity that human history is
full of Pharaohs and Shiddads who were not contented with any limit of power
and authority. Their lust for authority took them to the extent of claiming
deification to them. The same modernity gave birth to Hitler and Massolini
whose ever increasing urge for expanding territorial boundaries demanded a new
piece of land every day. It is the same modernity that has engulfed the whole
world in the tornado of nudity and obscenity, and has provided an excuse for
fornication, and more so it has led, under thunder claps to the passage of a
bill in the British House of Commons to legalise homosexuality. It is in the
shadow of the same modernity that Western women are openly displaying banners
on the streets demanding legalisation of abortion. And it is the same modernity
which is providing argument for justifying marriage with true sisters,
daughters and other blood relations.
It proves that “Modernity” is a double-edged sword which can be
used for the benefit of mankind and to cut its own throat. Hence any new thing
is neither acceptable just for being new nor refutable just because it is new.
That Much is clear and obvious. But the most important question is, “what is
the criterion to decide which invention is useful and acceptable and which is
harmful and not acceptable.
One way to determine this standard is to follow the dictates of
reason alone. Hence, in secular societies this decision rests with logic and
reasoning. But the difficulty in it is that those people who robbed humanity of
all the attributes of morality and character in the name of ‘Modernity’ and put
it on the road to barbarism and brutality were all men of reason and
philosophy, and there was none of them who had not made pure intellect as their
guide. The reason is that once free of the divine guidance of Wahy ‘intellect’
becomes like a beloved of every Tom, Dick and Harry, so that each of different
kinds of contradictory elements considers it to be its exclusive property while
in fact it belongs to none of them. In such an “Intellect” one can find
glamorous justifications for every evil concept and filthiest of action. For
example, the names of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cause the humanity sweat with
shame, but the scholarly and world-fame book “Encyclopedia Britannica” has
mentioned the disasters caused by Atom Bomb in these cities after the
introductory sentence as follows:
“Former Prime Minister Winston Churchill estimated that by
shortening the war the Atomic Bomb had saved the lives of 10,000,00 US soldiers
and 250,000 British soldiers”. (Britannica vol.2, p. 647, 1950).
Several examples of similar rational interpretations can be
presented. With due apologies to modesty I would like to present another
example in the light of which correct position of pure intellect would become
clear. In the history of Islam there has passed a sect known as Bati-niyah. A
renowned leader of this sect Ubayd-ullah al-Qirwani has written:
“What can be more surprising that a person having claim to wisdom
acts so stupidly that he has with him beautiful sister or daughter. His wife is
not so pretty, he marries her daughter or sister to a stranger. If these
ignorant ones had any trace of wisdom they would have known that they
themselves had a greater right on their sisters and daughters than a stranger.
The main reason of this stupidity is that their Master has forbidden good
things on them.”
No matter how you react to this disgusting and repulsive
statement, it is an obvious example of what havoc is caused to human reason
when it is not guided by divine guidance. What argument is there with reason to
reject this hideous suggestion of marrying with real daughter and sister? Hence
we see that the dream of ‘Ubayd-ulla Qirwani is coming true centuries
afterwards, and voices are being raised in some Western countries to legalise
marriages with real sisters.
In short, carried by the wave of Modernity, if the decision for
good and bad is left on reason alone the result will be that no value of life
will remain intact. Besides, man will be lost in the labyrinth of contradictory
opinions and concepts from which no way out could be traced. The intellectual
level of every person is different from the other. The reason is that
independent of divine guidance ofWahy is regarded by man as free but in fact it
becomes the slave of his beastly passions and sensual desires. This is the
worst form of servility. In the Qur’anic phraseology it is termed as Haw-a that
is passion, and it is about this that the Qur’an declared:
(If Truth becomes subjected to their passions great tuMult will
occur between the earth and skies and the creations therein).
A group of philosophers has been mentioned in the discussions of
Legal Theory. Their concept of morality is called the Cognivist Theory. The famous
legal expert Dr. Friedman has summerised this view in his book “Legal Theory”
in these words:
“Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions and can
never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them (p.36).
The end result to be derived from this view, in the words of Dr.
Friedman, is:
“Every thing else but also words like ‘good’ ‘bad’ ‘ought’
‘worthy’ are purely emotive, and there cannot be such thing as ethical or moral
science (pp.36,37).
However bad or wrong this view may be to form the basis of moral
conceptions, it provides a true and realistic interpretation of secular
reasoning. Factually, there can be no other outcome of submission to secular
reason that no such thing as “Morality” should exist in the world, and nothing
but passions should govern the words and deeds of man. In fact secular
reasoning and ‘morality’ can never go together because a stage is arrived in
the pursuit of ‘modernity’ when a man’s conscience regards an action as bad yet
he feels bound to adopt it because ‘modernity’ and secular reasoning offer no
argument to reject it. The western thinkers of today are helplessly facing the
same predicament. A large number of British thinkers do not like the
legalisation of homosexuality adopted by the Parliament a few years ago but
they were obliged to accept it because in the doctrine of purely intellectual
“modernity” there remains no option but to legalise every evil that has
prevailed in the society. How admonishing are words of Wolfender Committee
which was appointed to consider this issue:
“Unless a deliberate attempt is made by society acting through the
agency of the law to equate this fear of crime with that of sin, there Must
remain a realm of private morality and immorality which in brief and crude
terms is not the law’s business.” (The Legal Theory).
In fact, once reason alone is made a judge to decide what is good
and bad man will be deprived of every standard that may be used as a basis to
stop a new practice harmful to society. Reason has to be made to follow divine
standard of good and bad.
The law-makers are extremely worried that in the presence of
general trend of modernity what method can be adopted through which at least
some exalted human values might be preserved. An American judge Carduzo has
written that the most important legal need of today is that a philosophy of law
should be organised which could create a harmony between the contradictory and
antagonistic demands of stationary and revolutionary values. But the fact is
that this job cannot be done through reason and philosophy. The entire
disruption has started because the function of Wahy (Divine Revelations) has
been imposed on the intellect of man and in this way a burden has been placed
on its shoulders which it cannot bear. It is only on the basis of some valid
arguments that a law can be called perpetual and free of changes, but the human
intellect is incapable of producing any such argument. Today some people may
regard a law as unalterable on the basis of their reasons but tomorrow others
may realise that it is not fit to be a perpetual law and they would declare it
alterable. The only solution to the problem is that instead of making his self
to be a slave of his passions he should submit it to the Being who created him
and the entire universe. Since that Being is fully aware of all the changes
that would occur, no body else can determine which principles of law are
unalterable.
The famous author of jurisprudence, George Paton, has written:
“What interests should the real legal system protect? This is a
question of values in which legal philosophy plays its part….But however Much
we desire the help of philosophy, it is difficult to obtain. No agreed scale of
values has ever been reached indeed. It is only in religion that we can find a
basis, and the truth of religion Must be accepted by faith or invitation and
not purely on the result of logical argument. (Portion: Jurisprudences p.121).
In short secular intellect has totally failed to define the good
and bad. Hence there is no solution to the problem except that the man should
seek guidance from God and follow the revealed doctrines. There is no other way
of salvation for humanity. The Qur’an said:
“Is he who has a clear proof from his Lord like those to whom
their evil deeds are made alluring and they follow their caprices?” (Muhammad :
14)
Hence the only solution to the problem is that every new trend or
custom and convention should be judged, not on its apparent shine and glitter
but on the basis of standards laid down by Allah, the Lord of the Universe?
Once one finds any injunctions of Allah and His Messenger concerning it, then
it Must be followed without the least hesitation. The Qur’an says :
“And it is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when
Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter to have choice in their matter”
(Q: 33:35)
Another verse of the Holy Qur’an speaks:
“But no, by your Lord, They will not believe until they make you
(0 Prophet) the judge of what is in dispute between them, then find no vexation
in their hearts over what you decide and submit with full submission” (Q:4:65)
Whatever injunctions Allah has revealed in His Book or through His
Messenger (PBUH) pertain to such matters that if they are let to be decided by
reason they have led to aberrance; and since Allah is well aware of all the
past and future happenings only His commands can be obeyed in every time. Hence
it is stated:
“Allah makes clear (His commandments) to you, lest you go astray.
And Allah is Knower of every thing.” (Q: 4:176)
This makes another thing about “Modernity” very clear that the
need for divine revelations (Wahy) and commandments of Allah was felt because it
was difficult to achieve true guidance in this matter through intellect alone.
It is, therefore, essential that the divine injunctions be followed exactly as
they are. It is a wrong practice that any prevalent custom of time be first
taken as correct on the basis of self-reasoning, and then attempts be made to
fit the Qur’an and Traditions to it by making distant interpretations. Such a
method cannot be called submission to the will of Allah. Rather it amounts to
alteration and amendments for which no man is authorised, because that would
annul the very purpose of sending divine guidance. True submission means that
the commandments of Allah should never be allowed to be altered or modified
even if the entire mankind collectively so desire. Allah says:
“And perfect are the words of your Lord in truthfulness and
justice; there is none who can change His words; and He is the Hearer, the
Knower. And if you (0 Prophet) obey most of those on earth they would lead you
astray from Allah’s way. They follow nothing but surmise, and they do but
guess. Surely your Lord knows best who astrays from His way. And He knows best
who are rightly guided.” (Q: 6:115-117)
(And when Our clear revelations are recited to them) those who
hope not for the meeting with Us say, “Bring a Qur’an other than this or alter
it. Say (O Prophet) “It is not for me to alter it
of my own accord, I follow nothing, except what is revealed to me (Q: 10: 15).
This kind of true obedience may bring opposition of the people and
one may face difficulties but those who stand this test of the time, are
rightly guided in this world and the Hereafter. Allah says:
“And those whos strive in Our way, We shall certainly guide them
in Our ways. Indeed Allah is with the good-doers.” (Q: 29:69)
It is not the way of a true Muslim that he accepts what he finds
to fulfil his material desires and rejects what calls for some material loss or
puts him through some trials. This attitude, in Qur’anic terms, leads one to
lose both in this world and in the Hereafter.
“And among mankind is he who worships Allah upon the very edge—so
that if good befalls him he is contented with it, but if a trial befalls him he
turns round on his face. He loses this world andr the Hereafter. That is indeed
a manifest loss.” (Q: 22:11)
The only way to judge between desirable and undesirable modernism
is to examine it in the light of Qur’anic injunctions. If it is not in
opposition to Allah’s Commandments it may be accepted otherwise it Must be
rejected without misinterpreting and distorting it even though it may be
against the common trend of time. Reproaches and mockery coming from the people
should not be allowed to change his firm belief. A true Muslim has a clear
answer to such negative remarks provided by the Qur’an:
“Allah mocks at them and lets them loose in their impertinence in
which they keep wandering.”
This attitude is meant for such affairs of life as have been
ordained to be Obligatory, Incumbent, Traditional, Desirable or Forbidden and
Detestable. Hence these injunctions are unalterable in every period. However,
for things that fall under the category of being “permissible” man has been
authorised to adopt or to abandon them according to the needs and demands of
time. In fact, there are very few matters which Islamic Law has explicitly defined
as Obligatory, Incumbent, Traditional, Desirable, Forbidden and Detestable, and
are unalterable. On the contrary, most of the affairs of life fall under the
category of “permissible” and decisions about their adoption or rejection can
be made according to requirements.
We can see that the field of activity with regard to modernism as
provided by Islam is very vast in which one can live a modern life without
deviating from the way of Allah in the least. In them the man may apply his
intellectual abilities and may achieve enormous heights of knowledge and
discoveries as well as Science and Technology, and make them more and more
useful for mankind.
The greatest challenge for the
Islamic world today is to recognise these limits of “Modernity”, without
interfering the confined limits of unalterable injunctions of Islam.
Unfortunately the present attitude of Islamic world is in clear contrast to it.
Our scholars have been markedly slow in the spheres which demanded their active
efforts, while they are actively busy modernizing the unalterable Commandments
of Allah with the consequence that Muslims are deprived of the amenities and
comforts that modern time has provided to humanity and the evils of modernism
are at liberty to prevail in our society with no check from our side. May
Almighty Allah give us the ability and courage to fulfil our obligations to
modern times while safeguarding our ideological heritage.
From: at-Talib
See also:
