Name of the Book: Islam in Post-Modern Worldâ€â€Prospects and Problems
Author: Asghar Ali Engineer
Publisher: Hope India, Gurgaon (info@hopeindiapublications.com)
Year: 2008
Pages: 159
Price: Rs.350
The title of this book is, admittedly, somewhat misleading. What exactly is ‘post-modern’, a term that the book purports to address, but nowhere does it define what the author means by it? Can one talk of a ‘post-modern’ world when for vast numbers of people ‘modernity’ (whatever that may mean) itself seems far out of reach? That said, this immensely absorbing set of essays, the latest of Asghar Ali Engineer’s writings on socially engaged understandings of Islam, is a must for scholars of Islam as well as for the general reader.

Engineer begins by lamenting the fact that hardly any ulema or Islamic scholars have been able to suitably respond to the myriad challenges that ‘modernity’, ‘post-modernity’ and ‘globalisation’ have generated. He bemoans the lack of ‘original’ and innovative Muslim thinkers, and claims that most Islamic intellectuals (including, but not only, the ulema) today simply repeat, debate and discuss medieval texts and their prescriptions. By these he means texts other than the Quran and the Traditions attributed to the Prophet, that were written by the medieval ulema, including works based on their own reflections of these two principal sources. While he admits that there are indeed things of value in these texts, he points out that their authors were products of their own times and of their particular historical, social, economic, cultural, ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. All these indelibly influenced their understandings of the Islamic scriptures. Hence, he argues the need for Muslim scholars today to reflect on the Islamic scriptural resources afresh in order to seek to relate them to contemporary realities. This, he says, is the urge that underlies the various essays, on a disparate range of themes, contained in this book.
The first essay in the collection, titled ‘Islam as Religion and Islam as History’, reflects on the obvious fact that the history of Islam, as indeed of all other religions, does not conform to its teachings. Engineer suggests that, like other religions, Islam should be understood not according to the actions of those who claim to follow it, but, rather, by what it preaches. However, he adds, Muslims seeking to counter widespread anti-Islamic prejudice cannot do so simply by quoting Quranic verses or glorifying Muslim history. Instead, he suggests the need to objectively and dispassionately examine the history of Islam as historically understood by Muslims over the centuries. Here he talks about Islam at the time of the Prophet, with its thrust on liberation of the oppressed and on social equality, and how, when Arab and other Muslim empires were later established, interpretations of Islam underwent a shift in order to justify feudal authoritarianism and monarchical rule, resulting in notions and laws that sought to justify the subordination of the poor, women and people of other faiths. Engineer sees this as, in a sense, a revival of the pre-Islamic Jahili traditions and as a betrayal of the actual spirit of Islam.
The second essay in this collection discusses the vexed issue of ‘tradition’ and ‘modernity’, and of how Muslim scholars have responded to the question. ‘Modernity’, writes Engineer (without, however, defining what he means by the term) is often resisted because of insecurities, fear of change, and because it might threaten to undermine the vested interests of leaders as well as their worldviews. Technological changes are slowly accepted, but changes in traditional understandings of religion are often resisted strongly. This is the case not just with many Muslims alone, but with others, too. On the other hand, Engineer stresses that when it started out as a powerful religious and social movement, Islam, like other egalitarian religions such as Buddhism and Christianity, actually wrought considerable change, challenged old traditions and beliefs, and championed social equality and sensitivity to suffering. He appeals for a revival of this spirit to infuse contemporary understandings of Islam, as indeed other religions.
‘Modernity’, Engineer somewhat simplistically claims, is based on reason, and so is the Quran, arguing, therefore, that a Quranic or Islamic form of ‘modernity’ is indeed possible. The Quran, he notes, appeals to the intellect along with faith, and opposes blind faith. He contrasts this to what he sees as the blind conformity enjoined by many traditional ulema who, so he claimsâ€â€and here he makes a very broad and perhaps untenable generalizationâ€â€refuse to accept change even within an Islamic framework. He writesâ€â€and, again this can be debatedâ€â€that they regard the solution of every problem as lying solely within received tradition, considering any departure as sin. This, he says, is because they look upon medieval understandings of Islam as formulated by the classical jurists and theologians as binding for all future generations as well, refusing to recognize the human element that went into informing their understandings. Another reason for this, he says, is the influence of what he regards as fabricated Hadith reports attributed to the Prophet Muhammad. In this regard, he earnestly pleas for a revival of the tradition of ijtihad, a practice that was stressed by the Prophet himself, to creatively respond to contemporary and changing developments and concerns. Change, he notes, is inevitable. God, he opines, creates ever-new situations that take the form of new challenges for people to creatively deal with, and not for them to escape from or to respond to simply by repeating answers supplied by medieval scholars. Hence, he argues, the need for a new, contextual fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence and new understandings of theology.
One of the major challenges at the global level today is that of inter-faith relations. In the third essay in the book Engineer critiques the notion, commonly held by many Muslims as well as people of other faiths, that Islam is viscerally hostile to other religions and their adherents. This understanding, he says, emerges from not examining certain Quranic verses as well as historical instances of intolerance in their particular historical contexts. Critiquing this understanding, he evokes the Quranic dictum that there is no compulsion in religion and that a true Muslim must believe in all the prophets of God, with each ‘nation’ having received at least one such prophet. To further stress his point, he refers to the Quran as laying down, ‘Everyone has a direct to which he turns (himself), so vie with one another in good deeds’ (2:148). Likewise, the Quran adds, ‘For every one of you We appointed a law and a way. And if Allah had pleased He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie with another in virtuous deeds’ [5:48]. Engineer writes that this means that the Quran accepts the plurality of religions, ways of life and laws, and treats this as a challenge to humanity to coexist with tolerance and strengthen peace and morality. This, he says, is an eminently practical approach to other faiths and inter-community co-existence.
At the same time, Engineer recognizes that medieval jurists or fuqaha often subverted this Quranic approach to people of other faiths in order to justify their subordination. Hence, he argues, ‘[The] whole corpus of fiqh in respect of Muslims and non-Muslim minorities must be reviewed and [a] new fiqh should be evolved which should fit into [the] new context. The concept of dar ul-harb [domain of war] and dar ul-islam [domain of Islam] are totally outdated today’ (p.42). This new fiqh that he calls for should, he says, champion human rights, respect for other faiths and their religions, and place the spirit of religion, including such cardinal values as love, compassion, peace, inter-community solidarity and social justice, over mere ritualism.
This new fiqh and new understandings of theology would have major implications for how the normative status of Muslim women is understood, as the next two essays in the book make clear. In the first of these essays, Engineer broadly surveys the history of what he calls patriarchal understandings of Islam on the part of male religious scholarly elites, a project in which women had little or no role after the first few decades of Islam. He seeks to retrieve the spirit of gender justice and equality that he sees the Quran and the Prophet’s own life as having been informed by, and cites with approval the efforts of contemporary women Islamic scholars to develop gender-sensitive understandings of their faith. The second of these essays deals with the controversial issue of fabricated so-called Hadith reports attributed to the Prophet considerably after his death. Engineer writes that their purpose was to justify and strengthen male domination and to undermine the gender equality enjoined upon by the Quran. He calls for Muslim scholars to develop new understandings of women’s status and roles and inter-gender relations based essentially on the Quran.
Half a dozen or so other articles also included in the volume reflect the same basic concern for developing a socially engaged understanding of Islam related to a host of other issues, such as Hindu-Muslim relations, AIDS, the environment and Islamophobia, as well as critiquing what Engineer regards as erroneous and un-Islamic interpretations by self-styled radical Islamists and diehard Islamophobes.
This book comes straight from the heart and speaks to the heart as well. The clumsy grammar that is evident right through the book (and this is a feature of many of Engineer’s writings) may thus be excused. As a plea for rethinking traditional understandings of religion to address a wide range of contemporary challenges, this book excels.
Dear Mohan,
I apologize for the delay in responding to your comment. I’m extremely busy with studies, work, and managing preparations for a wedding in the family. It is with regret that i inform you that I will not be able to pursue this discussion at your pace. I will be taking weeks to respond to your comments.
Regarding the “worst of beasts” verses, I reiterate, the look at the preceding verses in both cases (as well as other similar instances in the Quran) establishes the specificity of those verses to a particular community, in a particular time, at a particular place, and as a result of a particular form of Kufr. Arguing for a monolithic definition of Kufr only reflects at your unfamiliarity with the Quranic usage of the term. The Kufr of the people of Lot is different from the community of Abraham, which is different from the tribe of Saleh, etc. The Kufr of the polytheists is different from that of the hypocrites, and that of some of the Muslims. Yes, even Muslims can be guilty of Kufr. And yes, belying Allah and His Messenger is A FORM OF Kufr, but it isn’t the only form of Kufr. The Islamic belief system recognizes the fact that different people commit Kufr under different circumstances, and there are varying levels to it.
As for Awliya, the words used for friends in general in Arabic are Sadiq, Rafiq, Khalil, Habib, Sahib, etc. and they have been used in the Quran at places that warrant their use. Being a semitic language, the root alphabets Waw-Lam-Ya along with the grammatical position/role of the word in the sentence determines its meaning in any particular occurrence. You talked about 3 translations: there are others available such as MAS Abdel Haleem, Saheeh International, Abdullah Saeed, Muhsin Khan, etc. that are more Tafsir(exegesis) based. Yusuf Ali and others probably translated it as “friends” for lack of a more comprehensive(in their opinion) word in English, as mentioned by Karoly. Regardless, do any of the 3 translators actually believe that it is forbidden to be friends with non-Muslims? No. Not Ali, nor Pickthal, nor Shakir. Ali’s and Pickthal’s translations are also available with explanatory notes, and you can cross check.
As for all this affecting our discourse on interfaith relations, please wait for further posts. I will try to cover the issue in my response to JB’s comment. Thank you for being patient.
Amit,
To the best of my knowledge, the verses in Gita, Veda, Ramayan etc. are openly discussed and their meaning debated. There are different versions of Ramayan with different and contrasting interpretations. And I doubt that any sizable majority of Hindus or Hindu leaders call for living life strictly according to these religious texts and obeying the letter of the words in them. Also, whatever in the texts was found problematic according to the changing world, the Hindu society at large has had no problem with leaving such problematic words behind even if their ancestors at one time believed and lived by such words.
The verses of the Quran are, and have always been openly discussed and their meanings debated. There are different interpretations and explanations of the Quran available with great differences in them. No sizeable community of Muslims or Muslim leaders call for obeying the letter of ALL Quranic verses, or their varying interpretations. Almost all present and past scholars have argued in favor of a literalist-contextualist interpretation of Islamic texts without shutting out the other completely. Also, whatever interpretations were not in accordance with the needs of changing circumstances were automatically deemed irrelevant by the vast majority of scholars and their followers.
There’s a logical fallacy in saying “no word in a book is problematic” and “we have to believe and follow everything written in a book” when the book contains contradictory messages.
Forgive me for being frank, but your comments are based on ignorance. We claim to follow the TEACHINGS of the Quran, which may not be the same as your understanding of particular verses, which is based on translation, which is also a human exercise. The vast majority of Muslims have accepted the sciences of ‘Usool at-Tafsir’ and ‘Usool al-Fiqh’ to construct a limiting and liberating framework under which all exercise in interpretation is to be carried out. According to this framework, there may be contradictions in OUR UNDERSTANDING of the text, but never in the text itself – which provides the basis for deeming unacceptable interpretations as unacceptable interpretations. There’s also the science of Maqasid ash-Sharia, which recognizes peaceful and healthy interfaith relations among the objectives of Islam.
Regarding creating competing frameworks for making progress in interfaith dialog in current times, this demands an exercise in Ijtihad(creative juristic reasoning), which is being practiced by the likes of Tariq Ramadan, AbdelKarim Sorroush, and other scholars.
JB,
“Inter-faith dialogue is like a negotiation process.”
You have to make clear how far this negotiation and compromises should go. And what to do if not the most even within a same community are able to reach a consensus on the contentious issues? You want Muslims in the US working in the supermarkets to handle pork and alchohol as a compromise and contribution for better inter-community relations. Now by abstaining from doing this Muslims are actually declaring solidarity with Jesus, the spiritual leader of most of the populace there, who had vehemently prohibited these things. So how can you explain this approach, which appeals to their own faith and spirit, as hindering the inter-faith dialogue?
Again I remember, when I was a student, a Muslim Biology teacher of ours motivating us to wake up early in the morning to study better by speaking of one of his own brilliant co-students, who was a Brahmin, as a model. This boy used to get up very early in the morning for his prayers, battling cold, tiredness and drowsiness, while many of the Muslims, including myself, who are required to rise up early for their mandatory morning prayers, fail to stand up to this trial most of the time. At the same time you boast of giving up such exalted customs as a “sacrifice”. Then you have to make clear whether it is your values and customs, or just your birth, which makes you a Brahmin. This betrays an inability to distinguish between what is good and bad, and retain the former.
K,
You point out that not ALL verses of the Quran are for all time. You are right. Imam Ali (a.s.) also pointed this out in the Nahjul Balagha.
HOWEVER, he also pointed out tha the knowledge of this is with those FIRMLY GROUNDED IN KNOWLEDGE.
Today, it is very difficult to identify these people. Therefore, to avoid error, we HAVE TO follow ALL the verses.