DISCOURSE ON MODERNITY, AN INTELLECTUAL TRIVIALITY

[_Waziri_]

Assalamu Alaikum;

Dear brothers and sisters,
What follows is a contribution to a debate with our brothers, Sanusi L. Sanusi and AbdulSalami Ajetunmobi. We have created an emailing since after the other debate we had at Gamji.com on the issue of apostasy in Islam. Though it is an emailing list there were many people, therefore this thing is not private. I reproduce it here in anticipation of your invaluable contributions. I will also try to see that I publish each and every contribution from any other brother responding thru' the emailing list. I pray we will all find reason to learn from this discourse, especially my blood, Maqari who found reason to leave us in search of what is modern in the goldmine of USA.

DISCOURSE ON MODERNITY, AN INTELLECTUAL TRIVIALITY

By
Ibraheem A. Waziri


“Everything that I shall say has been told, all have walked through the garden of knowledge”
- Firdausi, Book of Kings

Dearly beloved,

I think we have by now had enough rest to enable us look at issues more objectively with the hope of achieving higher goals. What indeed prevented me from raising more points the other time, was the disposition of brother Abdulsalami Ajetunmobi, as he reacted to some of the points I raised. He asserted my ignorance in an earlier mail, but when I denied that and tried to tell about who really I am, he said I was pompous and resorting to vanity. This of course is discouraging and portrays an aim of getting rid of one. Waziri constitutes a danger to his kind of interpretation of Islam and therefore must be destroyed, and not with superior arguments, no, but with outright denunciations. Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi on his part did not help matters.  For when I tried to refer him to an error he once made in attributing the writings of AlQadi Iyadh to Khalil in defence of what he called “ignorance” on my part when I attributed the writings of Ali Shari’ati to Ayotollahi Mutahari, he protested and asserted that he still stands by that. One wonders why all these? In this phase of the debate I pray we will be identified with more objective sense of purpose than in the previous, since the goal, presumably, is to bring to plane the reality of things as they are for the benefit of the discerning public.

I wish to identify three major strands of arguments in Muslims discourses and try to understand the real issue behind them. These are: Modernity as referred by brother Abdulsalami and Sanusi L. Sanusi; Islamic Banking as mentioned by Sanusi in one of his mails and thirdly; the classification of Muslims as Shi’ites, Sunnites, Qur’anites, Modernists, Moderates, Traditionalists, Progressives and Conservatives. This at least for my observation of Sanusi’s and Abdulsalami’s disagreement with such classifications by myself, without much regard to the fact that Mallam Sanusi uses this kind of classifications, with a sense of righteousness in his essays, especially the terms progressives and traditionalists.

I wish also to approach this discourse with the conviction that we are all creationists who believe in the divine, hence the scientific evidence of creation of humankind. It would also be good to understand that all social theories of “modern” western educational system, in the last two centuries were built on the presupposition that humankind were evolved by chance, not created by God, and as such the whole concept of development, and the so-called modernity, both among the social and liberal democrats, is built on the assumption of a continuous refinement of human race to a most “civilised” height in this world. Thus, Francis Fukuyama of the Frankfurt now Chicago school at the turn of this century would write his celebrated and yet controversial book, The End of History and the Last Man, concluding that liberal democracy represents the end of ideological evolution, and the people in the west represent the peak of the “evolved” man. We the creationists have evidence both by reason and revelation to believe the contrariness of such claims and assert the truth that the whole issue of modernity is a ruse in intellectualism and discourse on it is nothing surpassing an intellectual triviality.

Modernity

As brother Abdulsalami would say “practicing Islam in modern times”. Here comes the inevitable question, what is this modernity that Islam has to adjust to? What is modern as opposed traditional, as we frequently see in nowadays literature?  Is it technology? If it is technology, why is it that Muslims have to adjust and change their interpretation of the Qur’an just for the simple reason that a new machine has been invented thereby subjecting divine rules regarding social behaviour, business and political life to the service of a newly invented technological device? Is conscience not the most precious possession of humankind? Or must conscience be subjected to the product of human skills? After all we know that it is not a Burqa or a long beard that shows how one can operate or create a new device. Technology in the life of humankind has always been there and no human beings can claim that their proficiency in dealing with a particular machine is due to their religious belief, race, and colour or family background. Neither can we also say our technological backwardness as Muslims today, is due to our religion or interpretation of it, because different people of different background and mindset have been on the lead in the field of technological advancements over the centuries. In fact no scholar of civilisation can claim a fair sense of precision in explaining the reason why civilisations, Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman, Indian, Chinese, Greek or Islamic crumbled.

Certainly the discussants know that technology is not what they mean by modernity as it relates to Muslims character and disposition. No. Most of it is what is considered a new thought in social, economic and political theories. You hear modern psychology, modern politics, and modern sociology, latest breakthroughs in legal theories and financial dealings which Muslims are expected to leave what they see as the correct interpretations of their religion in that regard and follow the other one, or mould there ways to suit that new arrangement, they should keep subjecting there religion to condition set by other people and must strip Islam from its revolutionary attributes, which always seeks to change condition to that which is less tempting for them to maintain their faith in this temporary abode. Thus the statement, “Modernity has come to stay and Islam must learn to adjust to it”, is attributed to Ali Mazrui.

The truth of the matter is, in the life of humankind, their behaviour, political and social, they remain themselves right from time. They have not changed and the fact that something called “new” is “introduced” into their life does not mean it is truly foreign to their character. The concept of humankind being a savage and they keep changing for the better over time is an intellectual treason imported into social theorems. The reality is human beings right from time have been friends, enemies, they marry, they trade, and they are capable of exhibiting bestialities, can be compassionate, kind, and just. They can also be foolish, wise, godly or ungodly. They have conscience and their quality in reasoning and system belief, emotional attributes and dispositions has never changed. Read the preface to the book, The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Green, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, by Stephen R. Covey and ultimately the Holy Qur’an, which in its text and context always remind humankind that their like in everything have been to this world in the past.

To buttress this point further, we take the example of the phrase “modern banking”, which suggests that there is something novel about banking business, but in actuality it is business in usury that has been there right from time immemorial (I will come back to this when I take Islamic Banking). Also there is this issue of modern democracy, the legislature, executive and the judiciary, rule of law and freedom of expression; government of the people, for the people and by the people; people’s participation in governance and other things. But in reality if you check the history of humankind you find that, these are natural things and there was not a government in the past that did not rule with the exclusive claim to the abovementioned insights. Even Prophet of Islam is often quoted as saying: The most rewarding Jihaad is telling the word of truth on the face of a tyrant. In fact the most developed democracies like the USA within the 200 years of its existence produced 40 or slightly more presidents, while Zazzau an independent nation and an aristocracy once produced 60 kings within 200 years. One would find reason to ask here as to which system gives more room for people’s participation? Also in the USA you will find that only the Anglo-Saxons rule, which is akin to what is obtained in aristocracies. We even witnessed the case of a son inheriting his father’s seat, George Bush Snr. and George Bush Jnr. What is then the “modern” thing about this as opposed traditional? Also you would see that Iran is always condemned as not being democratic by having the Jurist Consult, the twelve Ulama’, who are the democratic watchdog of the nation, whose power overrides the national assembly and the executive. They are even compared by some writers to the old Christians Europe where the priests are said to have monopolised everything. One writer referred to their system as the “dictatorship of the learned”. But yet it is no longer a secret today that the Jewish lobby is in the control of American government and moulder of its policies, this they do outside the physical and logical layers of the government. But yet you see   people condemning Iran’s democracy as traditional but the USA’s as modern and developed, not to even term it to be “ the dictatorship of the rich Jewish bankers”.

Another thing also is the democratic culture in social living, which, as it is portrayed, gives freedom of choice of ways of life to individuals and groups.  Its recent scores, among other things, is its acknowledgement of people’s right to become whatever they want including homosexuals. This too is never new in other cultures even before democracy is known in this form. For long, Hausa societies understand that these characters have to exist and they can do what ever they want. We have grown up to hear people being addressed as ‘Yan daudu, they are dandies and behave like women. We also have Magajiyan Karuwai, which is a title used to identify known head of prostitutes and dandies. One then, would be inclined to ask as to what is “modern” or new in this “freedom” that mark a phase in human development?

Discourse on modernity is only media hype and a sort of psychological intimidation in order for some group of people to impress a certain carefully defined perception of life. A careful study into the intellectual history of humankind will reveal that there is no time in history when human beings use faith alone without reason. But a dubious classification of the age of humankind into an age of faith and age of reason is everyday being projected. The whole body of Islamic literature and the methodology it follows before it establishes a law or ascertain the authenticity of a Hadith is purely logical and reasonable, even the knowledge of grammar right from time follows a strict rule of logic and finesse.

Islamic Banking

Another issue is that of Islamic banking, “progressive” Muslims think that since we are in an age of “modernity” which “has come to stay” we have to bend our rules and subscribe to the notion of banking, though in this case, an “Islamic one”.  Here we must call to mind that the idea of banking in itself is usurious in attribute and there is nothing novel about usury. Our reading of the good satiric work, The Jew Malta will give us insight into how the people of Europe struggled with the Jewish merchants of the then, who sought to establish their usurious banking system. Also a reading of the activities of the Roschilds, the Jewish rich family and how they were able to influence policy makers to yield to their demand of banking system is revealing. Today, though the Muslim apologist may find reason to say that his own banking in the “modern world” would be “interest free”. This definitely he would say without reflecting on the central nature of the banking industry across the globe. How could his bank be relating to all those usurious banks in the world? The idea of Islamic banking from a very practical point of view cannot really be Islamic. It is only an attempt to make the Muslims yield to the demands of Talmudic Judaism and compromise their moral decency by not demanding for changes, in issues relating to financial dealings.

Attached also to banking is the inevitable consolidation of the use of paper money, which helps the domination of the people of the world by the minority in the banking industry. It is certainly a deliberate attempt by these people to chain humankind, flouting all rules regarding their freedom and making them to capitulate to the wishes and aspirations of the bankers. In the beginning, money are counted in gold and silver and the mine for this is anywhere on earth, its management is left to nature and its acquisition is left to the abilities of those who may come across the mine. But this gold and silver is now replaced by paper money. Each country will have its own and in complete subscription to an international law that suggests the limit a nation will print those moneys. Some individuals who are influential not only in the major financial houses in the world but also in politics everywhere across the globe own these money banks. They make and unmake leaders, and are interested in every sphere of human endeavour. Being guided by no good sense of morality, they can always print whatever amount they want whenever they want something. They control everything; they deny the entire human race the hope of seeking this bounty of God freely but through their hands. Islamic banking cannot be a welcome idea since the issue of paper money is not settled among the jurists.

The Muslim Umma

In supposition of my reader’s agreement with the views expressed above, I will now go ahead to discuss the issue of classification of Muslims. No doubt today the body of Muslim umma are classified into different groups by their unique methods through which they read the world via the divine scripts, the Qur’an. In our history, colonisation of Muslims lands by the imperialists’ European nations accelerated the coming up of more groups since the Muslim governments that can to curb people’s excesses were no longer in place.  Yes,  it is desired if today  all these groups could mend their differences and see the world through one angle of the scripture. But how true this can be when difference in perception among individuals is as true as their physical selves? Yet, it suffices to say that Muslims are all in consensus that the Qur’an should form their first paradigm in thought and action. No dispute on this. But yet the first set of Muslims after the demise of the holy prophet found themselves facing many difficulties because they differ a lot in the way they did interpret Qur’anic injunctions, this accompanied with the fact that they had to continue acting, making laws within the confines of the faith. As a result, they narrowed down their differences further, by seeking for how the prophet correctly interpreted some verses. Later the collection of his words and actions together formed the body of the literature we today call Hadith. Now, in this “modern” world, I believe the reader will agree with me that if we drop all Ahadith and just use Qur’an directly, we will find ourselves in the same pit, because logical but yet contradictory interpretations will everyday be coming up and as a result we cannot act, we will only keep arguing. As such we have to have ourselves a sort of an anchor. Let’s get to the root and find out how the prophet did it. Allah says in the Qur’an: “Verily you have in the messenger of Allah most excellent pattern of conduct”.

 There are of course some Ahadith that are completely a fabrication, and because of the fear of exchanging them for a precious gem, a science was evolved that checks the authenticity of Ahadith, it checks the personality of those who reported any particular Hadith, among other things. In this the Shi’ites raise questions on the personalities of even some of the Sahaba but the Sunni do not raise questions on the personalities of the Sahaba as part of the convention. And both camps have logical and “reasonable” reasons for doing that. But one thing we cannot deny both the two camps is the fact that they both have strong arguments against or for each position they take.

There are also some other Muslims that are known as the Qur’anites, Mu’tazilites and what have you. In my opinion the Qur’anites, the Shi’ites,  Mu’tazilites, or Wahabites  have the right to adopt a particular convention that leads them to making conclusions always. In as much as that system or convention is rounded enough to solve practical human problems reflecting the sentiment of the Qur’an and its teachings. In this we can see that the conventions in Shi’a and Sunna are the only ones that transcended the level of mere opinions/ideals to practical applications. And to them belong the credit of the highly stimulating Islamic culture, which poses a threat to “modernity”.

If then we are to adopt and practice that of Mu’tazilites or the Qur’aniyyun then we have to be ready to come across many ideals that only remain “sweet” and “reasonable” ideals but cannot achieve being practiced because they carry within them the seed of the destruction of the system itself. Although Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi always tries picking from different schools of thoughts in order to achieve what he may term to be “the correct” opinion. But yet picking from different conventions makes one to easily end up without a boundary, he becomes impracticable, he tends to be susceptible to the invasion of the demons that push people to be selective not objective. Because this objectivity we are saying in it is subjective since it has to draw from different objective arguments that all make a complete sense. For a good student of Mallam’s works with a little background on Muslim History, Law and Philosophy, will see that his position maintains a kind of incoherency and inconsistency. In his work The West and the Rest, he has gone along way in his show of admiration to the ways of the Wahabites, the Ahli Hadith but in so many other places disagreeing with their conclusions or adopting that of the Mu’tazilites. This is like a case of a person endorsing the ways of empiricists but yet subscribing to the views of a poet who base his conclusions just on emotions.  

Others like Abdullahi Anna’im who are today putting forward new claims about Islam and Shari’a in the hope of evolving a new convention, of moulding Islam to suit the demands of “modernity” always come up with an Islam that does not reflect the sentiments as expressed in the context and the text of the Qur’an.

We can see from all these that classification of Muslims into these groups is something that we cannot do without. But what is the most important is to have a worldview, a paradigm that sees the world from the spectacle of the divine script reflecting the sentiment of the Qur’an.

 The only classification that may not fit is the one that suggests a gap between Muslims progressives and Muslims traditionalists, because modernity as we have said above is a ruse. Therefore the progressives cannot progress to anywhere since they are not creating a new boundary in the humankind’s ruminative mind and living conscience. Humankind have always have conscience and nothing in the studies of their character ever suggested an improvement along this line.

Conclusion

To the mind of a Muslim and all other people of faith and of course from the records of the prevailing reality over time, this world is a temporary abode for humankind. Through their deeds they will one day be judged and a permanent abode will be merited to each and every soul. Here, what exists in the realm of human action is in the definition of good and evil. And the greatest gift their creator gave them is conscience, which affords them the privilege of sifting what is right from what is wrong. They also have instincts, which provide them with the drive and the ability to take the ways of evil or good for themselves within the confines of reason and revelation. These attributes of humankind have been with them right from time immemorial. What changes in their life is only technology, which is supposed to be a vehicle through which humankind will seek for the realisation of the purpose of their creation. And to every person of reason, will see that justice can only come among humans when they use their conscience very well not when they mould it to the service of a newly invented technological device.

As for modernity in social theorems, we can easily conclude that it is not true, for nothing today is new. Any attempt to re-fashion Islam to suit a claim of modernism is a fraud, an attempt to cajole the Muslims into subscribing to the consolidation, hence the political, social, economic and the intellectual domination of the rest of the world by the empire of greater Israel, which in its over one hundred years of existence never offered mankind anything than blackmail and terror.  Therefore the Muslims must not capitulate. Those things that are forbidden no matter the nature of their embellishment by the hurricane of “modernity” will remain so; those things that are legitimate will remain legitimate no matter their characterisations by the “modernists” as ancient, savage and archaic.  The 21st century is the same as 1st century in as much as life in human beings is the same as conscience is life.

We can understand that no matter the kind of setting or people or faith practiced, human beings will continue to be cruel, just, kind compassionate, bestial, godly or ungodly. They will marry, be friends and enemies. They will continue to be an embodiment of intellect and emotions, a carriage of soul and body and a combination of faith and reason. After all, when did the West gain ascendancy that our apologetic Muslims would feel we have to mend to their ways or hit the rocks? Is it not in the past 200 years? Did the empire and the system in Spain not spend over 800 years before another system crumbled it? Why then are we too much in a hurry that we are ready to compromise the precious dictates of our conscience? The task of ours intellectual Muslims today, should be a quest to a paradigm shift that carries the potential of restricting the “beast of prey” called humankind. Therefore, Muslims in the 21st century demand for nothing more than these, among other things:


As Allah says “ Say unto my servants to say the best when it comes to speech” so we demand that all media houses both electronic and print must depart from the creed in journalism that says “news means trouble”.  All movie houses and music industries must adhere to this rule and all pornographic industries must be scraped. Let intellectualism be distanced from the dubious theory of evolution and the real truth of creation form the bedrock of intellectual arguments.

 As Allah says the essence of humankind is to serve and obey Him, so we demand that the concept of right and liberties be revisited and be defined within the boundaries of duties and obligations. As Allah forbids usury so we demand that the world financial institutions be reshuffled and reorganised. Let the relationship between men and women be redefined. Let all fashion houses amend their definition of fashion and give way for decent outfits to take control over all humankind. Let the atmosphere be convivial for us to practice our faith and all human beings will walk with less temptation and increase in guarantee to having access to the paradise promised to us by God.

It is then we will give thanks to Allah and say to the people of the world “ Islam is here to stay and the bulk of humankind have right to choose to adjust or not to adjust to it”
I remain most grateful,
I ask for your forgiveness and;
 Wala Udwana Illa Alal Zalimin
[There is no enmity except against those who transgress the limits (set by God)]

[_Waziri_]

Salam Brothers and sisters, below a response from our beloved brother, Abdulsalami Ajetunmobi in respect to the above assertion. Thanks once again

Salam,
 
I find your essay on the above invigorating. I agree with the main thrust of its arguments but not some of its conclusions. First, let me correct the wrong notion that I poured scorn on your previous scholarship. The paragraph you referred in your essay actually praised your work. A reproduction: ?€œThanks for all the correspondence which I found refreshingly lacking in vanity and pomposity.?€? That was meant to be a praise and not condemnation.

 

On wider issue, there is no doubt, as you expounded, that human basic psychological urges which work as underlying motive forces of human behaviour, remain unchangeable. Indeed, human sensory perceptions may widen but their recognition of sensory stimulators like the sweet, the bitter, the savoury, the unsavoury, heat and cold, noise and silence, comfort and discomfort, pain and pleasure and a myriad of other similar sensory stimulators will not undergo any change. However something is changing.

 

What is changing is the response we give to our motives and actions. For instance, one?€™s hunger can be satiated by eating meat or vegetables. The quality and freshness of meat and vegetables continue to vary. And so as society develops, our responses to the fundamentals of life continue to evolve and become more and more refined and sophisticated. Time continues to refine our conceptual faculties, forever widening our horizon and our grasp of surrounding realities.

 

So, when leading contemporary Muslims scholars call for modernism in Islamic world, they are only urging us to develop our line of thinking in accordance with the time-frame created by God and not to be restive. The justification for this is in the fact that our understanding of things is subject to constant change and also that our understanding of religious knowledge has a human basis that developed gradually, and we cannot claim to have learned everything we can about the religion based mainly on the opinions of the established scholars of the old.

 

To this end, Islamic modernity means not Americanisation neither alcohol nor promiscuity. It means an ongoing, all comprehensive continuous process like evolution. It means that our understanding of the Shariah must be compatible with and affected by the knowledge of our time, and that it is there that we will find healing answers to our problems. Truth is always constant but not the understanding of truth. And while what is perfect is constant, not everything that is constant is perfect.

 

The West had been successful by absorbing ideas from elsewhere there is nothing wrong in we also absorbing tested and established facts from without to widen our grasp of surround realities. The knowledge we gain through revelation is quite different story from that of the knowledge gained through secular scientific investigation. The Divine scripture is not a textbook of science, hence any reference therein to scientific subjects could not be merely incidental. The main purpose of Revelation is to establish the unity of source; to prove that the material world and the spiritual world are both the work of the same Creator. So, while Shariah for example, talks about many things including agriculture, industry and trade it leaves the essentials to the experience of the people. Therefore, Islam in the modern world is not weak and brittle, but strong.

 

Abdulsalam

[_Waziri_]

Salam,

Brother AbdulSalami, thank you for the kind reply. As for the paragraph it is obvious I got everything wrong. My assumption as a student of logic is when we say something is lacking in vanity and pomposity, impliedly we mean there was, before, another thing that was full of vanity, and it was with that impression I penned down that paragraph, as the Hausa would say:In babu rami mai ya kawa maganan rami, meaning, “if there is no trench on the road why speak about trench”. Anyway I think I am in its full picture now and I sincerely apologize for the misrepresentation.
 Certaily you made a very good observation. It is not what happen but how we respond to what happen around us that matters most. Though I disagree with you that our grasp of realities around us improves. Because if it really does it would mean one day we will come to a stage when humankind will understand everything in his surrounding. I can still remember when Stephen Hawkings, the looming authority in physics, wrote his book, A Brief History Of Time, in 1988, he started his introduction by saying:

"Today we still want to know why we are here and where we came from. Humanity's deepest desire for knowledge is enough justification for our continuining quest. And our goal is nothing less than a full description of the universe we live in."

In the conclusion of the book he said:

" But if we find the answer, it will be the ultimate triumph of reason... for then we will know the mind of God"

To Stephen Hawkings I composed and sent the following poem, under the title, "KNOWLEDGE" as a rejoinder:


”Know ye not Man, seek ye Knowledge”

Myriad millennia have passed us at the stream of knowledge

Vulnerable we are yet, amid the bulk of our knowledge

Where does lie the assumed peace acclaimed in knowledge

Where is the pride in knowing when we cannot exhaust knowledge?

Why must we know?

Who then is the ignorant?

When we will always be haunted by that craving desire to know more

That desire to know again is always at the trail of our knowledge

The more we know the more we realize that there is much to know

Know ye not Man seek ye knowledge

Until you can fall helpless at the footings of the providence


? I. A. Waziri, 1999
While I maintain that only technology in our life change, I believe there is nothing new added to the conscience of humankind. The so-called improvement you find in the field of knowledge and understanding in the Shari'a always revolves around with the clock of history. Just recently I saw the Ahli Hadith, in my area praying the Zuhr prayer 2:00pm instead of 12:30pm or 1:00pm. I asked them why? and they said a "new" Hadith has been discovered that says when the sun is hard in its heat it is desired that Zuhr prayer time should be shifted to when it is a bit cool. I asked them saying years back people used to pray 2:00pm but you were condemning them why change now?
You can see how cyclical even knowledge can be. Before in the Western world it was Evolution is as opposed Creation, but now people are increasingly coming to believe Creation. And one thing is if you trace back ancient Egypt you would see that there were times when Evolution reign, then Creation, then Evolution, then Creation, then Evolution again. This is just the point and as such I find it easy to conclude that there is nothing new. Modernity  is only a fashion. It is only  a vogue as they say.
Finally, when our Muslims scholars call for modernity in these years you would find that they mean to adjust to the conditions set by others not for us to struggle to set conditions ourselves. For example, recently Shaykhal Azhar gave a Fatwa that those muslims ladies in France that were denied the right to put on Purdah should adjust to that and even those appearing in media television in Egypt should not put Purdah. If we also read the real Muslim modernist like Muhammad Abduh we would see how he tried very hard to adjust to the ways of the West in terms of marrying wives and many other things which I believe you are versed enough to remember. This is just the sketchy overview. I know you can also remember Abdullahi Anna'im and Mahmud Taha for their new breakthroughs in legal theories.

[_Waziri_]

Salam brothers and sisters,

Below is another response from our brother Taofiq AbiolaMallam Waziri,

I have only now just glanced thorough your article and
I have to say on first few paragraphs I have to
strongly disagree with you.

In an effort to dismiss what modernity represent you
have disregarded its meaning. Let me quote
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary meaning of
modernity:

“1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of the
present or the immediate past : CONTEMPORARY b : of,
relating to, or characteristic of a period extending
from a relevant remote past to the present time
2 : involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas


First of your do no confuse modernity with
‘civilization’ that I again quote as follows:

1 a : a relatively high level of cultural and
technological development; specifically : the stage of
cultural development at which writing and the keeping
of written records is attained b : the culture
characteristic of a particular time or place.

From the above you can see that modernity and
civilization are two different things. You cannot make
comparison of ‘modern’ societies but can make
comparison of civilized societies. For modernity is
never permanent it can change as the wind while
civilization last for a period of time.

When making references to civilized society always
mention all of them; you forgot to mention the most
civilized society even the present West today will
acknowledge was more advanced than theirs: the
Egyptian civilization.

Now on to your definition, the present era of
modernity and western civilization started with the
Technological revolution that resulted in the ability
to mass produce goods on a large scale. You probably
may not realize it, this is the only contribution the
West has made in comparison with other civilizations
and which stands out and sets it apart from others. On
political thought and democracy I’m afraid they
borrowed all that from the Roman Empire that had a
Senate that could rule when Ceasar was not available.
Plurality of government is not a new thing and
therefore cannot be the ‘pinnacle’ of political
thought as the Japanese reference you quoted
mentioned.

I will come back to why in the event of a third world
war democracy as you know it will cease to exist
later. To me, democracy is just a convenient
invention of the present system of mass production to
gain access to cheap labor: women and the masses, and
make it look like you are contributing something when
actually you are not. Please read the quote below that
was dusted from the archive when George W. Bush
launched his war on Iraq and got the US Congress to
support him:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither
in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE
LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it
is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship,
or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or
no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce
the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY
COUNTRY."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg Trials


Back to the issue of modernity and Islam you cannot
define modernity with reference to traditional Islam.
I quote the dictionary definition of traditional as
follows:

1 : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of
thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice
or a social custom)
2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and
customs by word of mouth or by example from one
generation to another without written instruction
3 : cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs,
and institutions
4 : characteristic manner, method, or style


In order words do you prefer an Islam that is handed
down from your father and grandfather without
criticism, without reference to its original sources?
Do you prefer that Islam that has been mingled with
culture to that Islam that requires the use of your
intellect, question and verification?

On issues such as stoning do you prefer interpreting
the Maliki School that accepts pregnancy is enough
evidence for zinah without reference to what Imam
Maliki himself said of his rulings or to the
historical events of the time? Do you just apply the
law now without additional Ittihad or Qiyas? The key
here is re-examining existing rulings in the light of
new (scientific evidence) and methods USING
established Islamic principles of fiqh, shura, etc.
Here are some of the differences between using
inherited (traditional) laws as opposed to modern
ones.

On the role of technology in modernity, obviously if
you live in a less developed country you would not
realize the difference between countries today that
gives it unspeakable advantage is TECHNOLOGY. Who
would dream of attacking Pakistan or India today? What
makes them now untouchables? Nuclear capability! So
what my dear Mallam Waziri were you talking about?
Today technology defines modernity, if a Japanese were
to produce a piece of machine and sell it to you, you
have three choices to be able to use the machine: (1)
send someone to Japan to learn how to use the machine
or (2) get a Japanese to come to your country to teach
you how to operate it or (3) Make the same machine
yourself. When you purchase a piece of artifact on the
technological ladder from someone you are also
purchasing a piece of that person’s culture that in
turn influences you for good or bad. The words
Toyota, Ford, Suzuki, Dell, and Hewlett Packard are
the names of people who founded these companies in
case you don’t know.

Islam it not adverse to modernity or technology;
because you encounter the bad aspects of modernity
does not translate to going back to traditional
inherited ways that are even more detrimental. Instead
it has been part and parcel of Islam and Islamic
thought (when Muslims were active) to develop a
filtering mechanism: take the good and throw out the
bad. The Muslims did it when the Persians were
conquered: most of the magnificent mosques today are
based on Persian architecture that was dominant at the
time. As you have mentioned previously a lot of
philosophical ideas were borrowed by the Muslims from
the Greeks. So what is the current problem between
Islam and modernity now? A lack or non-existence of
Islamic thought.

The re-invigorating or resurgence of this though is
what is frequently referred to as “modern Islam”. It
is not fitting for you to belittle the efforts of
several Muslims scholars to solve the problem of
interest finance, by finding alternatives for Muslims
and calling it Islamic Banking. The whole system in
the West is based on it, it is not the best, they
themselves have acknowledged but nobody is yet to find
an alternative. If the Muslims were to do so we will
not only be helping ourselves but the whole of
humanity as well.

On the issue of Muslims being labeled Shi’a, Sunni, if
you are familiar with business principles and the
theory of the firm I will borrow from them here.

Shi’a, Sunni Mutazilite and Ba’athist, can be referred
to as vertical differentiations because the divisions
revolve around fundamentals in the religion. For me it
is dangerous to quote sources along vertical
differentiations as sources of Islamic Law as Mallam
Sanusi does.

Wahabi, Qur’anites, ‘traditionalist’ and ‘modernist’
can be referred to as horizontal differentiations
because these divisions do not revolve around
fundamentals, rather intellectual divisions with the
Muslim Ummah.

Diversity: here I would introduce a third terminology
called diversity. By diversity I mean the differences
in understanding between different people on the same
subject. This is as a result of experiences, intellect
or learning style. Now this diversity normally leads
to differences in political opinion and the way
forward. A classic example is the difference between
the conservatives and the progressives in today’s
Iran. The holy Prophet (SAW) in on of the reported
hadith welcome diversity in the ummah as a source of
strength.

Of all these divisions the vertical ones are the most
serious and damaging.

Wa salaam alaikum,
Taofiq

[_Waziri_]

Salam,
 
Thanks Bro. Taofiq for the kind reply. But i suppose you read thru' the article very well again for it appears like it is not my article you are discussing. I spoke about modernity actually not civilisations.
 
Thank you and God bless

[_Waziri_]

Below is another response from Bro. AbdulSalam

Salam,

Thanks for writing. If we agree that ?€˜technology in our life?€™ changes, then we ought to accept that something new is being added to human mind or ?€˜the conscience.' Mind is the seat of ideas which has its own distinct identity apart from that of the brain. While the brain is the material abode of the mind, the mind which occupies and dwells in the abode is not material. If the brain can be likened unto a computer, then the mind could be conceived as its operator. New idea is born when the mind manipulates the computeral brain. It is unlikely that 'we will come to a stage when humankind will understand everything in his surrounding' because we are in an endless voyage of discovery. The universe, according to the Holy Quran is expanding continuously. 'And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it (masi'un) (Quran 51:48)

 

Galileo saw the universe with his elementary telescope and announced that he had increased the horizon of human vision by a hundredfold thinking that that was the end. Today we perceive the universe enlarged a hundred thousand, nay a hundred million times greater and vaster than what he observed. So, times do change. If today it is so, tomorrow it is completely different. Fire may still burn as it always did, water may still extinguish as it has done in the past, but their properties are better understood with the passage of time. Therefore, ?€˜our grasp of realities around us improves?€™ all the time converting doubts into plausibilities, plausibilities into probabilities, and probabilities into certainties and established facts.

 

On Islamic banking which was touched upon by you earlier, I think we need to commend the efforts of the Muslims adventurous and creative brains who are trying to marry Islam with modern economy. The loan systems at that time of the Holy Prophet (saw) are not the same as the economic theories of today. Today, instead of gold and related articles of merchandise in use in the past, we now use paper money which is under constant pressure of inflation.

 

Now, in an inflation based economic system of today, will it not be to a lender's disadvantage for example, to loan say £100 to a debtor which, with inflation, could only worth say £75 in a year to come losing 25 per cent of its original value? And supposing the debtor insists on paying back the current face value of the money borrowed which is now worth less than the original amount, will that not constitute an act of oppression on the part of the debtor. How do we then exact justice so that the lender would possibly get the same face value of his original loan? Remember, Allah says we must do justice for He ?€˜loves not the oppressors' (Quran 3:130).

 

So, given the simplicity of Arabs and their economy at the time of Holy Prophet (saw), the copy and paste approach is not going to suit our purpose in that circumstance. We need to grapple with the demands of modernity within the framework of our religion by going back to the source (i.e. Qur?€™an) ourselves and deduce the best way forward. It is in this light that I always emphasis that we should guide against the general tendencies of uncritically accepting everything said by the ancient authorities of the old.

 

Abdulsalam

[_Waziri_]

This is another response from Sanusi L. Sanusi

Salam alaikum,

I have now read the piece. I will only make one comment on Iyadh and my supposed intransigence. I refer Waziri to Al-Shifa, the Bab Sabb al-Nabiyy-chapter on abusing the Prophet, and he will see why I insisted that what I wrote was right.

Iyadh very clearly counted as a "sabb" on the Prophet that you say "the Prophet was black". Whereas Bashir Aliyu had quoted another section of the Shifa to show that this statement is apostasy because it insdicates faith in another Prophet than Muhammad (SAW) who was an Arab, the fact is that it appears in other chapters in different contexts and the contyext of sabb is one of them. A close reading of the Shifa would reveal that Iyadh was relying on the authority of Suhnun in this matter.

To refresh our minds I never criticised either Iyadh or Suhnun for this position. I used it as an example of how our reading of the law must be contextual. In the society in which they lived, "black" was a derogatory term and the black people wer looked down upon with disdain. This much is clear from the works even of later scholars like Ibn Khaldun, not to talk of ahadith reported earlier y the likes of Ibn Hanbal.

So my only request to Ibrahim is to read the chapter in question and to also remember that I did not criticise Iyadh. As for the rest of the paper I agree with many things and differ on others but reserve my comments.

Lamido

[_Waziri_]

Wa'alaikum Assalamu,
 
It is now clear to me that Mallam did not really understand my point there. Really I thought I was explicit. What happened then was I made a mistake and attributed the writings of Ali Shari'ati to Ayatollahi Al Mutahhari. Then Mallam said I was ignorant of Mutahhari and his writings. Then I said no it was not ignorance since he too once attributed the writings of Iyadh to Khalil, in an article entitled Shari'a and Woman Question as published by the Weekly Trust Newspapers, years back, and we his readers did not say it was ignorance on his part to have done so. By implication am saying if we did not say it is ignorance then why must he term mine as ignorance? This is just the issue. But when I see Mallam speaking about one Bashir Adamu and any other thing I sincerely take it to be  a diversion. That is just that.
 

Waziri

[_Waziri_]

Salam,

Bro. AbdulSalami, I am heartily sorry for the late reply. If really I understood your points very well, then I think I can say the fact that technology changes does not mean the conscience gets increased in boundary. If my father succeeded in creating a chair within a 60 year period of his life, that is from the design to the implementation and I come to live for another 60 years using my creative abilities to improve on the creation of the chair. The chair will then have the skills of 120 years invested in its evolution. While on my part I will not be a continuation of the life of my father. His life terminated at 60 and a new and different person was born who spent another 60 independent years. You can see why human beings will not change or improve in conscience but what they create can improve. This is the point. This is also the same thing with our perception of the material world as you made reference to Galileo and his findings. They will keep improving.

But how bout social theorems? This is where the problems lie and it is here I think there is nothing modern because man’s sense of justice is not being improved over time. Still here in Nigeria there are educated ppl who still eat human flesh. Years back I heard a Hausa Magazine programme, on FRCN, where a market was discussed somewhere in Lagos, where ppl secretly go to buy parts of human bodies to eat.

On Islamic Banking, while I commend the Muslims adventurers for trying to go back into Qur’an in order to find more facts that will enable them adjust to “modern” business. I do not see them trying to go back into the origins of these modern business with the view of making corrections and coming up with new recommendations that will revolutionise the modern business completely. They are only bent on adjusting Islam to them not adjusting them to Islam. For example, this issue of paper money, you can see how it favours some few groups of people. I expect a Muslim making research in this area to try not only adjust to it but also adjust it to Islam. Remember if it were to be changed back to Silver and Gold with some good sense of management. It will just be “modern”. You know the modernity is nothing but a vogue. If I can establish something and have sufficient media backing, with a good stamp, I will then call it modern and it will work. It is just one kind abracadabra like that (LOL).

 Please, I am sorry to burden you up a little, I do not know if you could go thru' the ffg article, Economicism and The Reality of Human Happiness , perhaps you will understand me better when I say the theories in these modern things can be revisited just as we try revisiting our interpretations of Islam. Thanks once again. I remain most grateful.

Waziri