Muslim Responses to Modernity: Sayyid Ahmed Khan (d.1898) & the Controversial ''Jadid Ilm al-Kalam"

Dr. Muhammad Khalid Masud

Sayyid Ahmad Khan perceived three threats to Islam in nineteenth century India: missionaries, European prejudices against Islam, and the doubts about Islam in the Muslim mind.

In his address to the Anjuman-i Himayat-i Islam in Lahore in 1884, Sayyid Ahmad Khan called for jadid ‘ilm al-kalam to respond to these threats. In this speech Khan refers to two levels of this need: one the need of a rational and critical framework to explain Islam and the second the need for the restatement of Islam within that framework. In order to understand the structure of his argument let us summarize the main points of this speech.

Sayyid Ahmad Khan begins his address by stating that there are two types of belief: unquestioned belief and critical belief. It is the second type of belief that demands proof for the truth of everything.

The ‘ilm al-kalam that the ancient Ulama developed to confront Greek philosophy had some success. But today it is “neither sufficient for the firm believer, nor does it satisfy the mind of the doubter.” Calling for jadid ‘ilm al-kalam, Khan said, “Today we need, as in former days, a modern ‘ilm al-kalam by which we either render futile the tenets of modern sciences or make them doubtful, or bring them into harmony with the doctrines of Islam.” In the latter part of his speech, he then states how tenets of Islam, namely unity of God, prophesy, and so on can be rationally explained because human nature corresponds with nature and theteachings of Islam being words of God are not in contradiction with nature being the work of God Khan’s call for new Islamic theology identified three alternative options for the new framework: (1) to refute the questions posed by modern science, (2) to question their accuracy, or (3) to accept them.8 By the time he made this call, Khan had begun developing a new framework for the interpretation of the Qur’ān and a new method of reasoning in 1862.

He proposed fifteen principles for the exegesis of the Qur’ān. As these principles constitute Khan’s new theology, a brief analysis of these principles is given below. The first eight principles respectively are statements about the unity of God, the prophesy of Muhammad, revelation, the reality and true nature of the Qur’ān, and Divine attributes. The ninth principle explains the relationship between the Qur’ān as the “word of God” and nature as the “work of God”. “

The principles from tenth to thirteenth respectively state Khan’s position on the compilation and collection of the Qur’ān. The fourteenth and fifteenth principles elaborate the close relationship between the Qur’ān and the created world (natural phenomena) as the work of God and concluding that the work overrides the word of God. Khan argued that miracles are not in conformity with the laws of nature and concluded saying, “We declare openly that there is no proof of the occurrence of anything supernatural, which, as it is asserted, is the miracle.” Explaining why earlier scholars did not raise any objection to the irrationality of some of these miracle stories, he wrote, “The natural sciences had not progressed and there was nothing to draw their attention to the law of nature and to make them aware of their mistakes.

Khan also criticized Muslim beliefs and practices such as slavery, polygamy, and wrote on other such controversial subjects as relations with non-Muslims, especially consuming food prepared by them. Out of the conventional four Sunni sources (i.e. the Qur’ān, hadith, analogical reasoning, and consensus) he questioned the authenticity of hadith and the authority of the consensus. Khan rejected adherence (taqlid) to specific schools of Islamic law in favor of Ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). His views on abolition of slavery, rejection of polygamy, aggressive jihad, and triple divorce became staple doctrines of Islamic modernism.

Khan argued that miracles are not in conformity with the laws of nature and concluded saying, “We declare openly that there is no proof of the occurrence of anything supernatural, which, as it is asserted, is the miracle.” Explaining why earlier scholars did not raise any objection to the irrationality of some of these miracle stories, he wrote, “The natural sciences had not progressed and there was nothing to draw their attention to the law of nature and to make them aware of their mistakes.

Mawlana Qasim Nanawtawi (d. 1879) of the School of Deoband was probably the first among the traditional scholars who developed a detailed argument against this new theology.

The bitterest opposition to Khan and his theology came from the reformist Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanawi (d. 1943) who himself supported female education and reform of superstitious practices. He issued in 1886 a long fatwa in which he pointed out fifty heretic statements in the various writings by Sayyid Ahmad Khan and his associates.17 He called them “heretic naturist sect” (firqa muhditha nechariyya).

He claimed that this sect was guilty of finding fault with the Ulama. It corrupted the laws of Shari’a, ripped up its roots, destroyed its branches, criticized the experts of Hadith and accused the commentators of the Qur’ān for wrong interpretations. He found Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s views close to infidelity, but he cautiously declared him a heretic (mubtadi’)

Shibli Naumani wrote a two part volume on ‘ilm al-Kalam arguing that ancient Kalam was sufficient to encounter modernity; the theological doctrines which were unable to defend Islamic beliefs had been obsolete for a long time. Instead of new theology, he called for a critical study of Islamic history to correct Western misconceptions and distortions of Islam. According to him, the modernists, i.e. those who graduated from Western institutions were easily misled by the Western criticism of Islam because they lacked knowledge of the Islamic history and old theology.

Akbar Allahabadi’s poetry damaged Aligarh cause more than anything. He ridiculed and mocked modernity and modern education and criticized Aligarh for betrayal of Islamic tradition.

It is Abul Kalam Azad who destroyed Khan and his movement successfully.30 First, he revived the passion for a flowery Urdu overtly decorated with Arabic words and phrases. This style ended the trend of using language as a means of communication and instead revitalized the trend of enjoying language for its own sake. Second, Azad introduced a type of ambivalence to modernity. He appreciated intellectual activities in Europe but socially he remained opposed to it. In order to refute Qasim Amin’s influential book on the freedom of women, he translated into Urdu and published Farid Wajdi’s book. Third, he eulogized Jamal al-Din Afghani, who was committed to opposing the British, refuted vehemently Khan’s jadid ‘ilm al-kalam and stood for freedom and nationalism. Refuting the need for a new theology, he observed, “We must remember that the all groups of theologians failed against ancient philosophy. They will also fail similarly against the so-called new philosophy. At that time these were the people of Hadith and those who followed the path of Salaf who were successful. Today again only they are successful. None among the jurists and the theologians ever won the day.”31 Azad’s opposition to jadid ‘ilm al-kalam, Aligarh and the Western thought was so impactful that even Iqbāl had to rely on the style and diction introduced by Azad.




Read Full Paper: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MpUb_AWVpcMJ:www.pu.edu.pk/phill/alhikmat/currentissuePDF/1%2520MASUD%2520Iqbal's%2520theology%2520of%25

Dr. Muhammad Khalid Masud: Chairman, Council of Islamic Ideology,Islamabad