Abstract
West has developed entirely different type of civilization which is founded purely on reason. This scientific civilization—modernity—has now taken its roots in various parts of the world. One crucial feature of modernity is that myth no longer play any significant role as it once did. Nations which exposed to it recently are struggling at the face of the new conditions and reaccessing their traditions, particularly religious ones, as they were designed for very different type of civilizations. As a result, it is becoming increasingly harder to be religious in the premodern ways. People have deep desire to remain religious as their ancestors were but they are helpless against forceful modernity. In this situation a different kind of religiosity is require. Fundamentalism is actually one such attempt. Although fundamentalists talk about return to “fundamentals” however their approach is essentially modern. But we need better attempt proposing rather humane reinterpretation of the faith. The nature of the crises Pakistani society facing is precisely that. That is, it require a philosophy which is an effective response to modernity in which intellect is not in chains yet remain respectful to the religious temperament of the Pakistani society. Nor should it dispense with humanistic values. Needless to confess that it is enormously ambitious project. Once a context is given, I will point out some of the intellectual confusions prevailing in our society which must be resolved and then I will suggest a direction for constructing a philosophy that Pakistani society require.
Keywords: Fundamentalism, Islamic modernism, creation myth, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal
I. Introduction
In most premodern civilizations there were two recognized modes of thinking and acquiring knowledge which scholars term as mythos and logos. None was regarded superior to the other. Mythos (or mythology) of a society was not concerned with practical world. Its purpose was to enrich the inner personality of humans, helping them giving meanings to their lives. For practical aspects of life, these civilizations used logos which is rational thinking connected with the external reality. Logos was always forward looking, inventing new ways for combating or even controlling the environment. Without logos humans would have been extinct. However logos had its limitations. It could not assuage human pain or sorrow nor help finding meanings for one's life. For that there were mythos. In the last four hundreds years or so West has developed a very different type of civilization which is solely based on logos. This scientific civilization demands everything to be verifiable or supported by some observable data. As a result modernity has almost dismissed myths as mere fantasies or epic stories.
Things were quite different in the past, however. Myths not only helped finding meanings for life but were instrumental for living creatively in this confusing world. Mythos of a society was never intended to be accurate account of historical events, rather was an attempt to grasp the eternal realities which happen all the times. This is contrary to our present scientific view of history in which every event is unique; any research in history is primarily concern with whether event actually happened, and if so, how did it so. But in ancient times, any historical narrative had a definite purpose, concern with meaning, forming an important part of mythos of a society. The real significance of mythos was that it provided a specific spiritual and psychological posture for acting in this world. Both of these mode of thinking—mythos and logos—were supposed to be complimentary and equally important, mixing them was considered unwise as this might lead to dangerous consequences.
This paper is based on acceptance of Karen Armstrong's thesis presented in her book “Battle for God.” Her framework is based on two fundamental categories: mythos and logos, as explained above. She argues that much of the violence connected with the religion is caused by mixing mythos and logos. Moreover she advocates for a proper respect for mythos in modern society. The point is that “without the constraints of 'higher' mythical truth, reason can commit” the most horrific atrocities as became blatantly evident in the twentieth century. Nazism, Fascism, and Communism were scientific and abashedly secular ideologies but arguably are responsible for the most appalling brutality in the human history. The figures available for human casualties in WWI and WWII are quite horrifying—at least 12 million in WWI and 37 million in WWII. Not to mention Holocaust and other atrocities which continue after WWII under secular ideologies. At the end of the paper, we will attempt constructing a mythology—as academician would say it—which, I hope, will be addressing the philosophical need of Pakistani society.
II. A Case for Mythos
Mythos would not become effective unless we make their truth part of our lives. To inquire about the usefulness and truth of a myth, we require to act upon it. For example, a recurring theme in mythos is realizing one's potential, possibly going beyond it. This is done by mythologizing historical figures such as Buddha, Jesus, or Muhammad. This process of mythologizing liberates their heroic feats from their specific context giving them living presence. As a result a historical figure speaks directly to its audience regardless of one's personal context and fuels the intrinsic motivation to make heroic feats in his or her life, encourages making possible what yet seems impossible. For this reason we mythologizes great scientists as well for breakthrough in science and technology—Einstein, Edison, more recently Stephen Hawking.
The whole point is that it does not matter whether a myth is empirically demonstrable or a historically accurate description. What in fact matter is one's appreciation of it and making it part of one's inner life. This is the truth of a myth for him or her. If it does not provide any inner direction, it is a false myth for him or her. “Like poetry and music, mythology should awaken us to rapture, even in the face of death and the despair we may feel at the prospect of annihilation. If a myth ceases to do that, it has died and outlived its usefulness.” [2]
A myth is essentially a guide which is capable of changing minds and hearts, if one applies it in his or her own situation. However to make this reality, rituals are require. Without rituals, mythos would not make any sense and would simply died out. That is, rituals and myths are inseparable. It is the rituals which liberate a particular myth from its constraints of its specific historical context giving it a timeless living presence:
Religion is a practical discipline as it focuses on the action of people, but always have mythical elements at its core which has nothing to do with practical world but helps us giving meanings to our life, locating ourselves in our specific surrounding. These mythical elements encourages individuals acting in certain way. That is how religion derives its truth. To discover the truth of religion or its lacking, one must translates its teachings into rituals and ethical actions. Rituals are important because without them mythical elements of religion would get suppressed hence the desirable kind of spiritual or psychological posture religion would be missed out too. Some reformists in the Muslim world “emphasize the restoration of Islam's spiritual rather than ritualistic dimension, the recapturing of its true spirit, which they believe has been buried under layers of ritual and legal constructs.”[5] However, in the context of above discussion, these reformists cannot develop or revive any kind of Islam's spirituality without the rituals. That is, daily prayers, fasting, hajj all have their place of their own which cannot be overlook.
III. Fundamentalism as modern phenomenon
In the last four hundred years West has developed a scientific civilization which has transformed fundamentally every dimension of life—be it political, social, intellectual or economical. A rapid pace of innovation in technology has yielded unprecedented production capabilities as a result modernity does not have the limitation of agrarian societies. The concept of nature of truth is altered significantly. Nothing is acceptable without any evidence. This modernity is taking its roots in various parts of the world. As a result, myths and older theologies have become irrelevant. At the face of the new conditions, these myths do not speak or guide as used to be because these were created for entirely different type of civilization.
Nevertheless, people have deep desire to be religious in the same fashion as their ancestors were in the past. However to be religious in premodern ways is becoming increasingly harder. In fact it is now impossible. In this situation people are exploring new ways to still remain religious, looking for a new type of religiosity. Muslim world is passing through a period of transition as once Western Europe and America did. For Muslims and Jews this modernization process has been quite different and problematic. For them it is not a liberating or empowering experience but coercive, depriving, and brutal. One reason is that modernization for them has been too aggressive and pursued ruthlessly whereas for western Europe and America this transition to modernity took over three hundred years yet still it was wrenching and disturbing process, at times even traumatic.
We can see in Pakistan this transition is clearly on its way. For example, once taking out organs from dead bodies for transplantation was regarded as strictly prohibited by ulama. The argument offered was that dead body is the property of God therefore Muslims are supposed to return to Him unaltered. But this is no longer an issue as it is now declared legit. The reason is that it was practiced at such a large scale despite numerous warnings from ulama that eventually ulama were forced to legitimize it. The important observation is that this ijma' (consensus) was not done at the level of ulama but community. This suggest two important points: First, a new paradigm for ijma' is emerging in which community is the decisive element. Second, ulama's authority is steadily declining. This trend will continue unless they become open to the possibility of other types of religiosity. Acceptance or tolerance of Alqaeda whether selective also points out this trend. None of the Alqaeda leadership was educated in traditional religious school nor was any authorized to issue fatwa (verdict) yet were quite influential in comparison with traditional religious orthodoxy.
The issue is that how to remain religious against modernity. Fundamentalism is actually one response to this challenge. Fundamentalist asked for return to fundamentals but they do so in the spirit of modernity. Their approach is modern as they interpret the scripture literally. Moreover, they have presented it as a consistent logical system. Fundamentalists insist that mythical elements of the religion are empirically demonstrable in every sense. This makes fundamentalism essentially a modern phenomenon embracing scientific and pragmatic ethos. To sum up, fundamentalism is simultaneously a reaction against and development of modernity. It is a new type of religiosity which is undeniably an answer for what it meant to be religious in modern times. It is actually an embitter spirituality which is deeply rooted in the deep and profound fear of annihilation of religion.
During 1960s people thought secularism has almost defeated religion. It seemed that August Comte (1798-1857) proposed law of three stages would soon become a reality. He viewed history as if it evolves in a linear order in which social evolution begin from theological stage, and at the final stage which marks scientific phase society would become secular. But he missed the point that secularization of politics actually was an attempt to remain religious at the wake of radical transformation. This kind of religiosity can be traced back to Martin Luther (1483-1556) whose answer was privatization of faith [1]. In any case, religion has bounced back. Fundamentalists have succeeded in bringing the religion back to center stage and it is here to stay for long.
However attributing the the rise of religion in our times only to fundamentalism would be a mistake. Soviet Union brutally suppressed religion in a organized manner for almost three quarters of a century yet there too religion has made spectacular return without any fundamentalist movement. I am personally inclined to argue that religion is a natural response to human existence. Simply because we are meaning-seekers creatures. In this context, it is regrettable that prominent critics of religion have refused to discuss any other notion of God besides fundamentalists' as they claim it to be essence and core of all religions. Some of their criticism is valid but their analysis is very much shallow as it is based on a poor theology. On the other hand, we should never forget that ridiculing religion is always counter-productive. Twentieth century provides ample data to warn us. We should address, not attack.
IV. Hazards of Mixing Mythos and Logos
The ill of fundamentalism is precisely being modern in its approach: bringing the mythos into logos. Premodern civilizations understood the potential dangers of mixing the mythos and logos, hence regarded it unwise. Muslim history provides examples where mixing of mythos and logos led to dangerous consequences. One such instance is provided by Mu'tazila movement. It was a rationalistic school of thought inspired by Greek philosophy. It presented a philosophy in which it seeks to understand Qur'an and Islamic teachings through the exercise of reasoning. Mu'tazila valuable contribution to Muslim intellectual thought cannot be denied. However, they too committed a mistake bringing mythos into logos which ultimately led to its downfall.
Muslims believe that Qur'an is a guidance from God revealed to the world through Prophet Muhammad. As time pass by Muslim orthodoxy went one step further and declare that 'Qur'an is uncreated'—a proposition which eventually challenged by Mu'tazila articulately. They argued that if Qur'an is uncreated, that is its revelation to Prophet Muhammad was independent of concrete historical context, this then implies Quran is co-eternal with the God. Thus believing that Qur'an is uncreated is then a form of polytheism (shirk), claimed Mu'tazilites. It is hard to see any relevance of this theology for practicing Islam faithfully but Mu'tazilites took this matter beyond theological debate and used its political patronage to imposed their inference on masses. Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma'mun (reigned 813-32) issued an order for all civil servants that whoever believe Qur'an is uncreated or deny offering his opinion on this matter would be sentence to death [9]. Finally Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal (780-855), a renowned Muslim jurist, stepped in opposing it. He was imprisoned for many years and occasionally was flogged but he refused to surrender. His resistance had far-reaching political implications for Muslim world. It establishes that state does not have authority for imposing any religious opinion or theology on masses. The doors for a theocratic government were closed forever in the premodern Muslim world. Perhaps Mu'tazila would not be eradicated as a school of thought, had they avoided contaminating logos with mythos. Kharajiites movement which represents a crises in the early political history of Islam provides another instance in this regard.
In Pakistan today, a significant number of people holds that democracy is un-Islamic. It is argued that supreme authority belongs to Allah whereas in democracy it is in the hand of humans. So individuals advocating adapting democratic system are challenging Allah's authority. Again the confusion arises due to mixing mythos and logos. This viewpoint missed that a mythical elements of religion are to enrich inner life so that practical decision making would have a humanistic dimension. It was not meant to be applied in practical life in the literal sense.
The proposition that 'supreme authority belongs to Allah' serves only for developing a proper spiritual or psychological outlook, but it has no hold in running practical helm of affairs. Those rulers who discover its truth acted differently. The second successor of Prophet Muhammad, Caliph Umar bin Khattab, abandoned the law of cutting hands for the act of stealing arguing that unless state provide basic necessities of life to its every single citizen, this law cannot be implemented. Besides, any legislation is merely an understanding (fahm) of the Qur'an:
V. Absence of Democracy in Muslim World?
It is pertinent to digress a little to address a misconception as spread by numerous intellectuals in the Pakistani society as well as abroad. That most Muslim countries have military dictatorships or authoritarian regimes since ages. We cannot find a single Muslim state which is truly democratic. The reason is, these intellectuals argue, that there is some inherent problem with the Islam or Muslim culture, notably Fukuyama. Some have gone so far that they speculated that there is perhaps a genetically related problem with the Muslim masses. This is not only wrong, but also absurd and ignorant.
Democracy in the Western Europe and the US evolved partly as a consequence of intricate modernization process. The lofty ideals of freedom of speech, and human rights were dictated, at least in part, by the needs of the modern state. Because enhancing productivity and efficient use of human capital in modernizing require bringing segregated and marginalized groups into the mainstream culture. Democracy turned out to be the most effective way for organizing a modernizing society. In contrast, Eastern Europe used more coercive and brutal ways of bringing human capital into the mainstream and fell behind in the march of progress. [1]
By the beginning sixteenth century, Islamdom has three up-to-date and innovative states of that time: Ottoman empire in Turkey, Safavid in Iran, Mughal in India. But have inherent limitation of agrarian societies. As the western Europe and the US were modernizing further, Muslim rulers too felt a need and went for modernizing their military. By eighteenth century, this military emphasize left Muslim countries with only one modern institute —military, if there was any. As a result, everywhere military become vehicle of change, an instrument for modernizing process. It is therefore not surprising that military in modernizing Muslim countries have significant role in policy making. This decisive military role would fade out or minimized significantly once other state's institutes would get sufficiently modernized. Turkey is an example in this regard where military role has constitutional protection yet its role is increasingly becoming less decisive.
The path sought by Muslim rulers was aggressive imitation (taqleed) which itself anti-thesis of modernity. It is ironic that the attitude which Muslim reformers identify taqleed as the real hurdle towards transition to modernity is actually encouraged or adapted by modernizing agencies in the Muslim world. They aimed for catching up in the modernizing process in fifty to seventy years making it brutal and ruthless which resulted in authoritarian rule whether military or otherwise. Vartan Gregorian, the president of Carnegie Corp. of New York acknowledged: “As interpreted and implemented in the Muslim world, secularism and modernity have led to authoritarianism, repression, and perpetuation of Muslims’ inferior economic conditions...Secular models of modernization as imported phenomena have often not succeeded because they have not been rooted in Muslims' own national and cultural traditions.”[5]
In Pakistan, modernization began with General Ayub's rule. This modernizing process has taken a decisive turn in Pakistan's history as it no longer dependent on military. Now Pakistan's higher judiciary is the real vehicle of change. This is a unique experiment underway which is unprecedented in the entire Muslim history. The path for modernized Pakistan, it seems, passes through a vibrant judicial activism.
VI. Transition to modernity: Dr. Muhammad Iqbal
This is an undeniable reality of the present age that we can not be religious in the premodern ways. Fundamentalism evolve as an alternate religiosity, but it did not embarrass humanistic values. One of the most important humanistic values is compassion which neither modernity nor fundamentalism cherish. Compassion is the common denominator of almost all the religions. Therefore, any new religiosity as a better alternative must have compassion as its core value. In our effort for creating a new religiosity other than fundamentalism, we Pakistanis have two option: either construct a religiosity based purely on reason as done by Luther for the Christians in the West or it should be based on philosophy or mythology in which intellect is not in chains with proper consideration to compassion. It is my conviction that any fear of annihilation of religion among Pakistani masses is completely unfounded. Therefore we should not scared of any such attempt.
If we opt for any of the two options above then Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, poet-philosopher of Pakistan, can prove to be very helpful as a starting point. His was very timely and much needed response to modernity for creating a different type of religiosity. However his sincere, passionate and worth considering efforts did not received favorably by traditional religious orthodoxy. Had Iqbal not been such a great poet and extremely popular political figure, he would have been declared apostate. His is a mega-project as it has reconstruction of Islamic philosophy, mysticism, and Muslim political thought too. Iqbal is fundamentally a poet. With his supreme poetic intuition he has deduced far reaching and significant inferences. However their supporting philosophical arguments are not always convincing, sometimes rather weak. Regardless of quality of the argumentation or prescription, his deep and profound insight diagnose the ills correctly.
Iqbal himself did not claim any finality of his views and candidly admit that in future better views than his can be proposed. Our generation has the authority to critically examine Iqbal's message. If something found as unsound, it can be discarded respectfully. This will be precisely in the spirit of his message. He might well be politically irrelevant in Pakistan today but penetration of his poetry among Pakistani masses is still quite significant. A curious thing is that Iqbal's poetry being used or appreciated by almost entire religious spectrum. People seem to regard his poetry almost second to the Hadith as most Pakistanis believe him to be privy of some secrets hold by God.
For many critics, Iqbal's philosophy contains numerous contradictions. The thing is that Iqbal's thought has both mythos as well as logos. In my opinion, he did not mix them together but this poses a great challenge to his commentators as scientific analysis disallow such division. It has always been an issue whether his poetry deserve preferred treatment or his prose. His poetry decidedly created new mythos for Muslims in subcontinent. It is very unlikely that any poetry have logos as well, if not impossible. The search for logos in Iqbal's poetry is likely to cause confusion, as it did. Consequently Iqbal's thought may appear contradictory or irrational. Some even seems to considering his poetry as if it is all logos which can be dangerous.
Mythos of a society, as discussed above, is for setting up a proper spiritual and psychological posture for inner personality, this is precisely what Iqbal's poetry does. His logos can be found mainly in his speeches and letters. His magnum opus Reconstruction is also comprised of mostly mythos, hence quite helpful and relevant in understanding his poetry with increased confidence and clarity. It is in the sixth lecture where Iqbal's logos made their appearance revealing Iqbal's political thought. The fifth lecture acts as bridge from mythos to logos. He argues:
West has developed entirely different type of civilization which is founded purely on reason. This scientific civilization—modernity—has now taken its roots in various parts of the world. One crucial feature of modernity is that myth no longer play any significant role as it once did. Nations which exposed to it recently are struggling at the face of the new conditions and reaccessing their traditions, particularly religious ones, as they were designed for very different type of civilizations. As a result, it is becoming increasingly harder to be religious in the premodern ways. People have deep desire to remain religious as their ancestors were but they are helpless against forceful modernity. In this situation a different kind of religiosity is require. Fundamentalism is actually one such attempt. Although fundamentalists talk about return to “fundamentals” however their approach is essentially modern. But we need better attempt proposing rather humane reinterpretation of the faith. The nature of the crises Pakistani society facing is precisely that. That is, it require a philosophy which is an effective response to modernity in which intellect is not in chains yet remain respectful to the religious temperament of the Pakistani society. Nor should it dispense with humanistic values. Needless to confess that it is enormously ambitious project. Once a context is given, I will point out some of the intellectual confusions prevailing in our society which must be resolved and then I will suggest a direction for constructing a philosophy that Pakistani society require.
Keywords: Fundamentalism, Islamic modernism, creation myth, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal
I. Introduction
In most premodern civilizations there were two recognized modes of thinking and acquiring knowledge which scholars term as mythos and logos. None was regarded superior to the other. Mythos (or mythology) of a society was not concerned with practical world. Its purpose was to enrich the inner personality of humans, helping them giving meanings to their lives. For practical aspects of life, these civilizations used logos which is rational thinking connected with the external reality. Logos was always forward looking, inventing new ways for combating or even controlling the environment. Without logos humans would have been extinct. However logos had its limitations. It could not assuage human pain or sorrow nor help finding meanings for one's life. For that there were mythos. In the last four hundreds years or so West has developed a very different type of civilization which is solely based on logos. This scientific civilization demands everything to be verifiable or supported by some observable data. As a result modernity has almost dismissed myths as mere fantasies or epic stories.
Things were quite different in the past, however. Myths not only helped finding meanings for life but were instrumental for living creatively in this confusing world. Mythos of a society was never intended to be accurate account of historical events, rather was an attempt to grasp the eternal realities which happen all the times. This is contrary to our present scientific view of history in which every event is unique; any research in history is primarily concern with whether event actually happened, and if so, how did it so. But in ancient times, any historical narrative had a definite purpose, concern with meaning, forming an important part of mythos of a society. The real significance of mythos was that it provided a specific spiritual and psychological posture for acting in this world. Both of these mode of thinking—mythos and logos—were supposed to be complimentary and equally important, mixing them was considered unwise as this might lead to dangerous consequences.
This paper is based on acceptance of Karen Armstrong's thesis presented in her book “Battle for God.” Her framework is based on two fundamental categories: mythos and logos, as explained above. She argues that much of the violence connected with the religion is caused by mixing mythos and logos. Moreover she advocates for a proper respect for mythos in modern society. The point is that “without the constraints of 'higher' mythical truth, reason can commit” the most horrific atrocities as became blatantly evident in the twentieth century. Nazism, Fascism, and Communism were scientific and abashedly secular ideologies but arguably are responsible for the most appalling brutality in the human history. The figures available for human casualties in WWI and WWII are quite horrifying—at least 12 million in WWI and 37 million in WWII. Not to mention Holocaust and other atrocities which continue after WWII under secular ideologies. At the end of the paper, we will attempt constructing a mythology—as academician would say it—which, I hope, will be addressing the philosophical need of Pakistani society.
II. A Case for Mythos
Mythos would not become effective unless we make their truth part of our lives. To inquire about the usefulness and truth of a myth, we require to act upon it. For example, a recurring theme in mythos is realizing one's potential, possibly going beyond it. This is done by mythologizing historical figures such as Buddha, Jesus, or Muhammad. This process of mythologizing liberates their heroic feats from their specific context giving them living presence. As a result a historical figure speaks directly to its audience regardless of one's personal context and fuels the intrinsic motivation to make heroic feats in his or her life, encourages making possible what yet seems impossible. For this reason we mythologizes great scientists as well for breakthrough in science and technology—Einstein, Edison, more recently Stephen Hawking.
The whole point is that it does not matter whether a myth is empirically demonstrable or a historically accurate description. What in fact matter is one's appreciation of it and making it part of one's inner life. This is the truth of a myth for him or her. If it does not provide any inner direction, it is a false myth for him or her. “Like poetry and music, mythology should awaken us to rapture, even in the face of death and the despair we may feel at the prospect of annihilation. If a myth ceases to do that, it has died and outlived its usefulness.” [2]
A myth is essentially a guide which is capable of changing minds and hearts, if one applies it in his or her own situation. However to make this reality, rituals are require. Without rituals, mythos would not make any sense and would simply died out. That is, rituals and myths are inseparable. It is the rituals which liberate a particular myth from its constraints of its specific historical context giving it a timeless living presence:
In art, liberated from the constraints of reason and logic, we conceive and combine new forms that enrich our lives, and which we believe tell us something important and profoundly ‘true’. In mythology too, we entertain a hypothesis, bring it to life by means of ritual, act upon it, contemplate its effect upon our lives, and discover that we have achieved new insight into the disturbing puzzle of our world. [1]
Religion is a practical discipline as it focuses on the action of people, but always have mythical elements at its core which has nothing to do with practical world but helps us giving meanings to our life, locating ourselves in our specific surrounding. These mythical elements encourages individuals acting in certain way. That is how religion derives its truth. To discover the truth of religion or its lacking, one must translates its teachings into rituals and ethical actions. Rituals are important because without them mythical elements of religion would get suppressed hence the desirable kind of spiritual or psychological posture religion would be missed out too. Some reformists in the Muslim world “emphasize the restoration of Islam's spiritual rather than ritualistic dimension, the recapturing of its true spirit, which they believe has been buried under layers of ritual and legal constructs.”[5] However, in the context of above discussion, these reformists cannot develop or revive any kind of Islam's spirituality without the rituals. That is, daily prayers, fasting, hajj all have their place of their own which cannot be overlook.
III. Fundamentalism as modern phenomenon
In the last four hundred years West has developed a scientific civilization which has transformed fundamentally every dimension of life—be it political, social, intellectual or economical. A rapid pace of innovation in technology has yielded unprecedented production capabilities as a result modernity does not have the limitation of agrarian societies. The concept of nature of truth is altered significantly. Nothing is acceptable without any evidence. This modernity is taking its roots in various parts of the world. As a result, myths and older theologies have become irrelevant. At the face of the new conditions, these myths do not speak or guide as used to be because these were created for entirely different type of civilization.
Nevertheless, people have deep desire to be religious in the same fashion as their ancestors were in the past. However to be religious in premodern ways is becoming increasingly harder. In fact it is now impossible. In this situation people are exploring new ways to still remain religious, looking for a new type of religiosity. Muslim world is passing through a period of transition as once Western Europe and America did. For Muslims and Jews this modernization process has been quite different and problematic. For them it is not a liberating or empowering experience but coercive, depriving, and brutal. One reason is that modernization for them has been too aggressive and pursued ruthlessly whereas for western Europe and America this transition to modernity took over three hundred years yet still it was wrenching and disturbing process, at times even traumatic.
We can see in Pakistan this transition is clearly on its way. For example, once taking out organs from dead bodies for transplantation was regarded as strictly prohibited by ulama. The argument offered was that dead body is the property of God therefore Muslims are supposed to return to Him unaltered. But this is no longer an issue as it is now declared legit. The reason is that it was practiced at such a large scale despite numerous warnings from ulama that eventually ulama were forced to legitimize it. The important observation is that this ijma' (consensus) was not done at the level of ulama but community. This suggest two important points: First, a new paradigm for ijma' is emerging in which community is the decisive element. Second, ulama's authority is steadily declining. This trend will continue unless they become open to the possibility of other types of religiosity. Acceptance or tolerance of Alqaeda whether selective also points out this trend. None of the Alqaeda leadership was educated in traditional religious school nor was any authorized to issue fatwa (verdict) yet were quite influential in comparison with traditional religious orthodoxy.
The issue is that how to remain religious against modernity. Fundamentalism is actually one response to this challenge. Fundamentalist asked for return to fundamentals but they do so in the spirit of modernity. Their approach is modern as they interpret the scripture literally. Moreover, they have presented it as a consistent logical system. Fundamentalists insist that mythical elements of the religion are empirically demonstrable in every sense. This makes fundamentalism essentially a modern phenomenon embracing scientific and pragmatic ethos. To sum up, fundamentalism is simultaneously a reaction against and development of modernity. It is a new type of religiosity which is undeniably an answer for what it meant to be religious in modern times. It is actually an embitter spirituality which is deeply rooted in the deep and profound fear of annihilation of religion.
During 1960s people thought secularism has almost defeated religion. It seemed that August Comte (1798-1857) proposed law of three stages would soon become a reality. He viewed history as if it evolves in a linear order in which social evolution begin from theological stage, and at the final stage which marks scientific phase society would become secular. But he missed the point that secularization of politics actually was an attempt to remain religious at the wake of radical transformation. This kind of religiosity can be traced back to Martin Luther (1483-1556) whose answer was privatization of faith [1]. In any case, religion has bounced back. Fundamentalists have succeeded in bringing the religion back to center stage and it is here to stay for long.
However attributing the the rise of religion in our times only to fundamentalism would be a mistake. Soviet Union brutally suppressed religion in a organized manner for almost three quarters of a century yet there too religion has made spectacular return without any fundamentalist movement. I am personally inclined to argue that religion is a natural response to human existence. Simply because we are meaning-seekers creatures. In this context, it is regrettable that prominent critics of religion have refused to discuss any other notion of God besides fundamentalists' as they claim it to be essence and core of all religions. Some of their criticism is valid but their analysis is very much shallow as it is based on a poor theology. On the other hand, we should never forget that ridiculing religion is always counter-productive. Twentieth century provides ample data to warn us. We should address, not attack.
IV. Hazards of Mixing Mythos and Logos
The ill of fundamentalism is precisely being modern in its approach: bringing the mythos into logos. Premodern civilizations understood the potential dangers of mixing the mythos and logos, hence regarded it unwise. Muslim history provides examples where mixing of mythos and logos led to dangerous consequences. One such instance is provided by Mu'tazila movement. It was a rationalistic school of thought inspired by Greek philosophy. It presented a philosophy in which it seeks to understand Qur'an and Islamic teachings through the exercise of reasoning. Mu'tazila valuable contribution to Muslim intellectual thought cannot be denied. However, they too committed a mistake bringing mythos into logos which ultimately led to its downfall.
Muslims believe that Qur'an is a guidance from God revealed to the world through Prophet Muhammad. As time pass by Muslim orthodoxy went one step further and declare that 'Qur'an is uncreated'—a proposition which eventually challenged by Mu'tazila articulately. They argued that if Qur'an is uncreated, that is its revelation to Prophet Muhammad was independent of concrete historical context, this then implies Quran is co-eternal with the God. Thus believing that Qur'an is uncreated is then a form of polytheism (shirk), claimed Mu'tazilites. It is hard to see any relevance of this theology for practicing Islam faithfully but Mu'tazilites took this matter beyond theological debate and used its political patronage to imposed their inference on masses. Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma'mun (reigned 813-32) issued an order for all civil servants that whoever believe Qur'an is uncreated or deny offering his opinion on this matter would be sentence to death [9]. Finally Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal (780-855), a renowned Muslim jurist, stepped in opposing it. He was imprisoned for many years and occasionally was flogged but he refused to surrender. His resistance had far-reaching political implications for Muslim world. It establishes that state does not have authority for imposing any religious opinion or theology on masses. The doors for a theocratic government were closed forever in the premodern Muslim world. Perhaps Mu'tazila would not be eradicated as a school of thought, had they avoided contaminating logos with mythos. Kharajiites movement which represents a crises in the early political history of Islam provides another instance in this regard.
In Pakistan today, a significant number of people holds that democracy is un-Islamic. It is argued that supreme authority belongs to Allah whereas in democracy it is in the hand of humans. So individuals advocating adapting democratic system are challenging Allah's authority. Again the confusion arises due to mixing mythos and logos. This viewpoint missed that a mythical elements of religion are to enrich inner life so that practical decision making would have a humanistic dimension. It was not meant to be applied in practical life in the literal sense.
The proposition that 'supreme authority belongs to Allah' serves only for developing a proper spiritual or psychological outlook, but it has no hold in running practical helm of affairs. Those rulers who discover its truth acted differently. The second successor of Prophet Muhammad, Caliph Umar bin Khattab, abandoned the law of cutting hands for the act of stealing arguing that unless state provide basic necessities of life to its every single citizen, this law cannot be implemented. Besides, any legislation is merely an understanding (fahm) of the Qur'an:
It is an important principle of Islamic jurisprudence that competing or contradictory rulings can be equally valid. Juristic doctrines were, because they were the product of human reasoning, potentially fallible...The validity of a doctrine rested on the diligence and sincerity with which a jurist decided the matter, but its “correctness” was ultimately knowable only to God.[7]
V. Absence of Democracy in Muslim World?
It is pertinent to digress a little to address a misconception as spread by numerous intellectuals in the Pakistani society as well as abroad. That most Muslim countries have military dictatorships or authoritarian regimes since ages. We cannot find a single Muslim state which is truly democratic. The reason is, these intellectuals argue, that there is some inherent problem with the Islam or Muslim culture, notably Fukuyama. Some have gone so far that they speculated that there is perhaps a genetically related problem with the Muslim masses. This is not only wrong, but also absurd and ignorant.
Democracy in the Western Europe and the US evolved partly as a consequence of intricate modernization process. The lofty ideals of freedom of speech, and human rights were dictated, at least in part, by the needs of the modern state. Because enhancing productivity and efficient use of human capital in modernizing require bringing segregated and marginalized groups into the mainstream culture. Democracy turned out to be the most effective way for organizing a modernizing society. In contrast, Eastern Europe used more coercive and brutal ways of bringing human capital into the mainstream and fell behind in the march of progress. [1]
By the beginning sixteenth century, Islamdom has three up-to-date and innovative states of that time: Ottoman empire in Turkey, Safavid in Iran, Mughal in India. But have inherent limitation of agrarian societies. As the western Europe and the US were modernizing further, Muslim rulers too felt a need and went for modernizing their military. By eighteenth century, this military emphasize left Muslim countries with only one modern institute —military, if there was any. As a result, everywhere military become vehicle of change, an instrument for modernizing process. It is therefore not surprising that military in modernizing Muslim countries have significant role in policy making. This decisive military role would fade out or minimized significantly once other state's institutes would get sufficiently modernized. Turkey is an example in this regard where military role has constitutional protection yet its role is increasingly becoming less decisive.
The path sought by Muslim rulers was aggressive imitation (taqleed) which itself anti-thesis of modernity. It is ironic that the attitude which Muslim reformers identify taqleed as the real hurdle towards transition to modernity is actually encouraged or adapted by modernizing agencies in the Muslim world. They aimed for catching up in the modernizing process in fifty to seventy years making it brutal and ruthless which resulted in authoritarian rule whether military or otherwise. Vartan Gregorian, the president of Carnegie Corp. of New York acknowledged: “As interpreted and implemented in the Muslim world, secularism and modernity have led to authoritarianism, repression, and perpetuation of Muslims’ inferior economic conditions...Secular models of modernization as imported phenomena have often not succeeded because they have not been rooted in Muslims' own national and cultural traditions.”[5]
In Pakistan, modernization began with General Ayub's rule. This modernizing process has taken a decisive turn in Pakistan's history as it no longer dependent on military. Now Pakistan's higher judiciary is the real vehicle of change. This is a unique experiment underway which is unprecedented in the entire Muslim history. The path for modernized Pakistan, it seems, passes through a vibrant judicial activism.
VI. Transition to modernity: Dr. Muhammad Iqbal
This is an undeniable reality of the present age that we can not be religious in the premodern ways. Fundamentalism evolve as an alternate religiosity, but it did not embarrass humanistic values. One of the most important humanistic values is compassion which neither modernity nor fundamentalism cherish. Compassion is the common denominator of almost all the religions. Therefore, any new religiosity as a better alternative must have compassion as its core value. In our effort for creating a new religiosity other than fundamentalism, we Pakistanis have two option: either construct a religiosity based purely on reason as done by Luther for the Christians in the West or it should be based on philosophy or mythology in which intellect is not in chains with proper consideration to compassion. It is my conviction that any fear of annihilation of religion among Pakistani masses is completely unfounded. Therefore we should not scared of any such attempt.
If we opt for any of the two options above then Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, poet-philosopher of Pakistan, can prove to be very helpful as a starting point. His was very timely and much needed response to modernity for creating a different type of religiosity. However his sincere, passionate and worth considering efforts did not received favorably by traditional religious orthodoxy. Had Iqbal not been such a great poet and extremely popular political figure, he would have been declared apostate. His is a mega-project as it has reconstruction of Islamic philosophy, mysticism, and Muslim political thought too. Iqbal is fundamentally a poet. With his supreme poetic intuition he has deduced far reaching and significant inferences. However their supporting philosophical arguments are not always convincing, sometimes rather weak. Regardless of quality of the argumentation or prescription, his deep and profound insight diagnose the ills correctly.
Iqbal himself did not claim any finality of his views and candidly admit that in future better views than his can be proposed. Our generation has the authority to critically examine Iqbal's message. If something found as unsound, it can be discarded respectfully. This will be precisely in the spirit of his message. He might well be politically irrelevant in Pakistan today but penetration of his poetry among Pakistani masses is still quite significant. A curious thing is that Iqbal's poetry being used or appreciated by almost entire religious spectrum. People seem to regard his poetry almost second to the Hadith as most Pakistanis believe him to be privy of some secrets hold by God.
For many critics, Iqbal's philosophy contains numerous contradictions. The thing is that Iqbal's thought has both mythos as well as logos. In my opinion, he did not mix them together but this poses a great challenge to his commentators as scientific analysis disallow such division. It has always been an issue whether his poetry deserve preferred treatment or his prose. His poetry decidedly created new mythos for Muslims in subcontinent. It is very unlikely that any poetry have logos as well, if not impossible. The search for logos in Iqbal's poetry is likely to cause confusion, as it did. Consequently Iqbal's thought may appear contradictory or irrational. Some even seems to considering his poetry as if it is all logos which can be dangerous.
Mythos of a society, as discussed above, is for setting up a proper spiritual and psychological posture for inner personality, this is precisely what Iqbal's poetry does. His logos can be found mainly in his speeches and letters. His magnum opus Reconstruction is also comprised of mostly mythos, hence quite helpful and relevant in understanding his poetry with increased confidence and clarity. It is in the sixth lecture where Iqbal's logos made their appearance revealing Iqbal's political thought. The fifth lecture acts as bridge from mythos to logos. He argues:
[A]ll lines of Muslim thought converge on a dynamic conception of the universe. All that I mean to say is that, considering the direction in which the culture of Islam had unfolded itself, only a Muslim could have viewed history as a continuous, collective movement, a real inevitable development in time. The point of interest in this view of history is the way in which Ibn Khaldūn conceives the process of change. His conception is of infinite importance because of the implication that history, as a continuous movement in time, is a genuinely creative movement and not a movement whose path is already determined. [6, mine's italics]
VI. Reconstructing Creation Mythos
Mythos is always backward looking. It dives into the past and attempts grasping the eternal truth. Every true mythos of a society must begin with creation as it is central in setting up the desirable spiritual and psychological posture for right actions in this world or the next. “There is never a single, orthodox version of a myth. As our circumstances change, we need to tell our stories differently in order to bring out their timeless truth.” [2] We should too then begin with story of Adam and Eve which popularly known as Fall of Adam. This story paraphrased here is based on Iqbal's narration in his lectures, however no claim for faithful rendering. An eminent French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss (1908-2009) have an advice before we proceed further:
It is impossible to understand a myth as a continuous sequence. This is why we should be aware that if we try to read a myth as we read a novel or newspaper article, that is line after line, reading from left to right, we don’t understand the myth, because we have to apprehend it as a totality and discover that the basic meaning of the myth is not conveyed by the sequence of events but--if I may say--by bundles of events even though these events appear at different moments of the story. [8]
The story of Adam and Eve as popular in Pakistan is based on Torah and Old Testament. It is qualitatively similar to Quranic narrative but little different in symbolism and details which renew the mythos of Adam's arrival on the planet earth. Qur'an never intends reporting any historical event unless purpose is to highlight a universal ethical or philosophical principle. In doing so, Qur'an often omits dates and locations which liberate the narrative from the feelings associated with the context, yet it also retains a historical color. Iqbal believes, if properly understood, both Quranic and Biblical descriptions have the same goals. However, scholars differ on this point. (see [4]).
In Quranic symbolism, serpent and ribcage are entirely omitted liberating it from phallic connotation. Moreover. the word 'Adam' is rarely mentioned in the narrative, instead human or its synonymous is employed. The word 'Adam' is used more as a concept and reserved for denoting capability of human as vicegerent of God on earth. Tree is a symbol for knowledge and Iqbal inclined to suggest that eternal tree symbolizes inner or secrete knowledge. It was forbidden to eat their fruits but on Iblis' (Quranic name for Satan) persuasion both Adam and Eves eaten it. According to Qur'an:
But Satan whispered to Adam, saying, ‘Adam, shall I show you the tree of immortality and power that never decays?’ and they both ate from it. They became conscious of their nakedness and began to cover themselves with leaves from the garden. Adam disobeyed his Lord and was led astray. [20:120-121]
Note that contrary to popular account, Qur'an does not hold Eve responsible of the trespassing. Moreover, they did it so not because humans are fundamentally corrupt or sinful but were having hastened attitude. “We also commanded Adam before you, but he forgot and We found him lacking in constancy” [20:115]. The correction of which require putting in an environment which may however troublesome may be but better suited for discovering and developing his intellectual capabilities. That is, the purpose of sending Adam and Eve on earth was not to punish them but defeating Satan's plans who was conspiring that human may remain oblivious of his continuous development and joy of extending his self. That is, for Qur'an earth is not the torturing place to human where human is imprisoned as a consequence of his first sin.“We established you [people] on the earth and provided you with a means of livelihood there––small thanks you give!”[7:10]. Rather that first act of disobedience was also the first act of exercising its freedom to choose. That is why it was forgiven too. “Later Adam's Lord brought him close, accepted his repentance, and guided him. [20:122] .
The Adam's and Eve's story actually marks the beginning of human rise, not the fall. It shows progress of a free self which is capable of doubting and choosing a path for himself. The act of disobedience was a self-discovery that he is endowed with free will. The ability to make a free choice is the basic condition for goodness. However the power to choose goodness given by God also contains the possibility that human may choose its opposite, that is evil. God has taken a great risk, as angels argued, by bestowing His immense and unshaken faith on we humans. Now it is up to humans to make efforts justifying it. “When your Lord told the angels, ‘I am putting a successor on earth,’ they said, ‘How can You put someone there who will cause damage and bloodshed, when we celebrate Your praise and proclaim Your holiness?’ but He said, ‘I know things you do not.’[2:30]
To sum up, Qur'an meant human evolution: How human emerged on the planet earth and that how eventually he realized his freedom to choose and discovered that he is capable of doubting and disobedience. This story does not suggest any moral deprivation or decline because freedom to choose is precondition of goodness. His evolution went on further by the continuity of reproductive process and emergence of numerous humans. And uniqueness of an individual passed through various phases of maturity, now transformed to personality, self or ego. Qur'an mentioned Trust is actually this personality or self. Human has accepted this burden despite all the dangers this job entails. Hardship and pain which humans bear in the evolution of self is part of the process. At every stage he faces failures. disappointments which are to make him stronger and strengthen his belief that ultimately goodness will be victorious. god achieve his purpose. “We offered the Trust to the heavens, the earth, and the mountains, yet they refused to undertake it and were afraid of it; mankind undertook it– they have always been inept and foolish.” [33:72]
In this evolutionary process, intellect has very important role. As human self developed further, intellect evolves into intuition which is higher layer of consciousness for acquiring knowledge. It is not true that intellect and intuition have any conflict nor Iqbal suggested this anywhere. Both originates from the same source and relies on each other. Rumi too has the similar opinion. Intellect primarily concerns with external aspect of consciousness while intuition with inner aspect. This also provides the link between mythos and logos in Iqbal's thought.
Intuition being a developed form of intellect is far quicker and also a direct source of knowledge. It is simply a mistaken appreciation of his poetry that Iqbal is anti-intellect. Iqbal wants admission of intuition as a valid source of knowledge as intellect is. Dismissing intuition outrightly merely because we can not perform its controlled study is wrong and dogmatic. He frequently stresses that intellect is not an end in itself but a tool which we use to achieve some purpose, but that does not imply rejection of intellect at all. In fact Iqbal believes: “The birth of Islam…is the birth of inductive intellect. In Islam prophecy reaches its perfection in discovering the need of its own abolition.” The inductive reasoning which treats physical world as real (non-Platonic) found in Qur'an in abundance:
One of His signs is that He created you from dust and–lo and behold!– you became human and scattered far and wide. Another of His signs is that He created spouses from among yourselves for you to live with in tranquillity: He ordained love and kindness between you. There truly are signs in this for those who reflect. Another of His signs is the creation of the heavens and earth, and the diversity of your languages and colours. There truly are signs in this for those who know. Among His signs are your sleep, by night and by day, and your seeking His bounty. There truly are signs in this for those who can hear. Among His signs, too, are that He shows you the lightning that terrifies and inspires hope; that He sends water down from the sky to restore the earth to life after death. There truly are signs in this for those who use their reason.[30:20-26]
That human is created from earth (dust) is much stressed in the Qur'an, as in the above ayah [4]. This strongly highlight the sacred bond of human beings with the earth. It is not a mere resource as modernity came to view it, rather it is part of our Self. By building huge dams for our energy needs, we are disturbing ecological balance beyond repair. Pharmaceutical companies in their quest endangered countless herbal species which were there as an expression of love to humans. In the name of progress, scientific innovation or national interest, we now risk environmental catastrophe. Logos can not make sense of this tragedy, let alone suggesting its cure. The only repose we can hope for is some kind of spiritual revolution, some powerful mythical constraint which make us view once again earth and everything it contains as sacred, not as mere resource. This is the only way to make us compassionate towards it, strengthening the loving connection between human beings and everything on earth.
This creation mythos has potential not only to bring in and elucidate almost all the significant points of Iqbal's mythos but extend even further. The most important point of mythos as reconstructed by Iqbal is the notion of change—a dynamic conception of the universe. The universe is before human for creative exploration where only change has permanence. That exploration and self realization is precisely the purpose for which Adam and Eve were sent on earth. This joy of extending his self is no less intoxicating, if not more, than his experience in Paradise, as Iqbal suggests in the following couplet:
Why did You order me to quit the Garden of
Eden?—
Now there is much to be done here—so just
wait for me!!
Bibliography
[1] Armstrong, Karen The Battle for God Harper Collins publisher, London: 2000.
[2] Armstrong, Karen A Short History of Myth Canongate, US: 2006.
[3] Haleem, M. Abdel Understanding the Qur'an: Theme and Style I.B. Tauris, NY: 2011.
[4] Haleem, M. Abdel (Tanslation) The Qur'an Oxford University Press, London: 2005.
[5] Hunter, Shireen T. (edited) Reformist Voices of Islam M. E. Sharpe NY, 2009.
[6] Iqbal, Muhammad Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam Institute of Islamic Culture Lahore: 2003.
[7] Leaman, O., & Ali, K. Islam: The Key Concept Routledge NY: 2008.
[8] Levi-Strauss, Claude Myth and Meaning Routledge London: 1978.
[9] Sheikh, M. Saeed Islamic Philosophy The Octagon Press Ltd, London: 1982.
