Thursday, 20 November 2014

Modernism And Postmodern Thought

Modernism And Postmodern Thought

by Omar K Neusser
based on: Traditional Islam In The Modern World; Seyyed H Nasr





1. Definition of Post/-Modernism Versus Tradition
This text discusses the typical mentality of our times: modernism and post-modernism, as seen from the traditional Islamic perspective, using the intellectual method of René Guénon and S H Nasr.
Unlike the predominant opinion in our (post)modern times, where words and concepts have often become depleted of their original meaning - acquiring new quite opposite meanings,[1] we are of the conviction that concepts (abstract ideas) are receptacles of 'higher', more 'original' meanings in as much as we human beings are aware of and open-minded towards an objective, higher reality.
When meaning is lost and the modern 'diversification' of meaning is one aspect of it, then this world is about to succumb to meaninglessness.
René Guénon's method is to trace concepts back to their etymological roots and to redefine them according to their roots, whenever they have lost their deeper and original meanings. An example for this methology is the concept of 'tradition' and 'traditional', which we understand differently from the mostly vague suggestions commonly used, which do not explain much in the context of the higher levels of reality.


1.1 Definition of Tradition
Therefore according to how we understand the concept of Tradition from its etymological root: tradere (deliver, transmit) - Tradition has nothing to do with peoples' usages or customs from old, but is understood as *revealed* tradition, that is truths and principles of divine order revealed or unveiled to mankind.[46]
“Tradition is essentially of "super-human" origin, which is quite exactly also its correct definition and nothing traditional can be qualified as such without the presence of this vital and axial[2] foundational element, which defines its own authentic character.” DRG
“Nothing which is purely human can be considered traditional, that is why it is wrong - as René Guénon rightly says - to talk about a "philosophic tradition" or a "scientific tradition"... because only the heritery forms of an uninterrupted chain of transmission (silsilah) deserve the qualification "traditional" for they will guarantee the reality and permanence of the "vital element", ie. that of non-human origin, inside a particular tradition.” DRG
Or to put in another way: Tradition is the light with which the human kind has been endowed with from the beginning of times to the end of it;[3] it is the light of meaning in an otherwise meaningsless void, it is the light of spiritual guidance in a materialistic and hedonistic era, it is the light of the Logos shining upon the contingent entities. This Light is from God, the Light of the heavens and earth.[4]
In the case of Islam, which is the most recent - and the last of traditions, the concept of tradition, the dîn, is seen as being twofold:
• in its general meaning the transmission of an element of the suprahuman level - the Qur'an,
• and in its specific sense the words and sayings reported from Prophet Muhammad MHMD may Allah bless him and grant him peace, which have been recorded in the hadith collections together with the entire Islamic religion.


1.2 Definition of Modernism
Our definition of modern and modernism has nothing to do with what may be generally perceived as existing now-a-days (1*) as being very new or 'up-to-date', instead, what is here defined as modern, is that which is cut off from the Divine, the Transcendant, or the 'Supernatural', everything that does not refer to - and is isolated from - "the immutable principles which in reality govern all things and which are made known to man through revelation in its most universal sense. Modernism is thus contrasted with tradition (ad-dîn); the former [including] all that is merely human and now ever more increasingly subhuman, and all that is divorced and cut off from the Divine source. [Additionally] tradition has always accompanied and in fact characterized human existence, whereas modernism is a very recent phenomenon." S H Nasr, TIM98
And because those "principles (are) universal,... all the traditional doctrines are identical in essence". R Guénon, EW216

In other words modernism is: "The enlightenment-humanist rejection (2*) of tradition and authority in favour of reason and natural science. This is founded upon the assumption of the autonomous individual as the sole source of meaning and truth--the Cartesian cogito."[5]
1*: "If we are forced to re-define such terms as 'tradition' and 'modernism' ... it is because, [despite the considerable amount of research devoted to the subject by writers such as R. Guènon] there are still readers, including Muslim activists, for whom the distinction between tradition and modernism is not clear. They still identify tradition with customs and modernism with all that is contemporary.
Many Western students of Islam also identify 'modern' with 'advanced', 'developed' and the like, as if the march of time itself guarantees betterment."[20]
2*: The enlightenment-humanist rejection: In the European process of modernisation God, the Absolute, was falsely relegated to a relative role as aloof from creation, so called Deism, which denies God's rule over His creation;[6] instead the human being as such was to be celebrated and became the focus for all human motivation. This mostly Protestant mode of consciousness was of course a grave misunderstanding of the role of man and the role of God Himself.
S H Nasr described another characteristic of modernism as follows:

”A second trait of modernism closely related to anthropomorphism is the lack of principles in the metaphysical sense. Human nature is too unstable and turbulent be able to serve as metaphysical principle for anything. That is why a mode of thinking that is not able to transcend the human level and that remains anthropomorphic cannot but be devoid of principles understood metaphysically…”[19]
”Only mathematics among the modern sciences may be said to process certain principles in the metaphysical sense: the reason is that mathematics remains despite everything a Platonic science, and its laws discovered by the human mind continue to reflect metaphysical principles as reason itself cannot but display the fact that it is a reflection even if a dim one, when it seeks to turn upon itself, of the Intellect.”[19]

1.3 Definition of Postmodernism
We further understand postmodernism as the recalcitrant, unruly child of modernism. It is a kind modernism driven to its extremes, by its usurping or 'deconstructing' modernism itself and by its arrogant denial of tradition or anything absolute and permanent, which gives it the same bad smell as its parent concept, because it is overtly more rebellious and hateful of anything holy, divine, or absolute.
Postmodernism is the name for the general quality of our time. As it holds that all worldviews are constructed by historical processes, by culture and religion, postmodernism sees those worldviews ('tall stories') as a function of power rather than truth.[7] Truth does not matter.
In other words postmodernism is:

"A rejection of the sovereign autonomous individual (3*) with an emphasis upon anarchic collective, anonymous experience. Collage, diversity, the mystically unrepresentable, Dionysian passion are the foci of attention. Most importantly we see the dissolution of distinctions, the merging of subject and object, self and other. (4*) This is a sarcastic playful parody of western modernity and the 'John Wayne' individual and a radical, anarchist rejection of all attempts to define, reify or re-present the human subject."[5] 3: Also a rejection of reason as a universal concept.
4: Even the merging of true and false, as there is no more objective reference to Truth.
This emphasis upon ”anarchic collective, anonymous experience” has been immensely reinforced by the anonymity and virtuality (i.e. non-reality) of the internet innovation starting at the end of the 20th century.

2. Characteristics of Modernism And Postmodernism

2.1 Modernism & Postmodernism
In modernism it was believed that materiality or the existence of phenomena were everything there is and that knowledge of either is superiour to anything else. This philosophy of science is called positivism. Thus positivism is a rejection of metaphysics, as it holds that the ”goal of knowledge is simply to describe the phenomena that we experience,” which we can observe and measure and ”knowledge of anything beyond that, a positivist would hold, is impossible.”[8]
Now-a-days there is also the post-positivist critical realist who ”recognizes that all observation is fallible and has error and that all theory is revisable (and who is therefore) critical of our ability to know reality with certainty.”[8]
In some quarters there is still an underlying, dormant longing for the construction or discovery of the Grand Design (4*), meaning a new unity of being, of what reality really is, but a unity which has to do without religion and metaphysics. ( 2.3ff )
4: Probing the "Grand Design, in posing the greatest questions: How vast is the Universe, the entirety of existence? Was there a beginning? Will there be an end? What is the origin and fate of the Universe?"
However, as Charles Upton has shown[9] it is always held in postmodernism (as a conviction or belief ?!) that:

(1) there is no Grand Design,
(2) truth is plural and ultimately subjective,
(3) reality is only as it is configured,
(4) there is nothing out there but chaotic potential.

So much for the quest for truth!
Furthermore, with today's "celebration of diversity", normal logical thinking seems to have evaporated from many a contemporary mind, as modernism and postmodernism even can work together, or so it seems, in the mind of a single individual, confounding it and neutralizing any attempt toward a traditional or metaphysical view of reality![7] So we can find many absurd examples today where opposing opinions or convictions are held in parallel - at the same time by the same individual!



2.2 Postmodernism In A Nutshell:
(1) There is no objective truth or reality
   therefore => (2)
(2) reality is constructed
   therefore => (3)
(3) all comprehensible worldviews are oppressive
   therefore => (4)
(4) such worldviews should be deconstructed
   therefore => (5)
(5) Deconstructionism is the progressive pulverization of reality
   therefore => (1)
(1) ! !

SAC-34

2.3 Higher Levels of Reality Became Eliminated
So the higher levels of reality were eliminated from intellectual research and attention. This happened because reason and rationality were bit by bit isolated from their transcendant and immutable principles. This was a process over several centuries and this tendency became ever more prevalent since the French revolution of 1789 in Western, European thought and imagination.
From now on man himself became the centre point of existence and the ”modern” idea claimed that there was nothing higher than human reason and no object of science more dignified to receive scientific attention than what was possible to perceive empirically through the human senses. Typical for this was 'positivism'.

It meant that from now on man was "not able to go further than outward appearances".[10] Seeing that every science centered around man, however, made his research and therefore his civilization restricted to only one level of being, the materialistic viewpoint.
In postmodernism human rationality and what was left of human intelligence became relativized, relying on the sub-human and the irrational. In this restricted scientific field sense-experience became the only source of knowledge. But man thinks according to what he is; or as Aristotle certainly knew, 'knowledge depends upon the mode of the knower.'"
”A study of the modern concept of man as being 'free' of Heaven, complete master of his own destiny, earth-bound but also master of the earth, oblivious to all eschatological realities, which he has replaced with some future state of perfection in profane historical time [utopia], indifferent if not totally opposed to the world of the Spirit and its demands, and lacking the sense of the sacred, will reveal how futile have been and are the efforts" ...
... to modernise an integrated tradition such as Islam, or even 'harmonizing' Islam and modernism.” [11]
However, in the traditional sciences everything is related to and dependent on the higher levels of reality,[12] and in consequence there is always a vast field of scientific investigation above those practical applications which are the result of what modern man usually depicts as science.[13]

This was shown for example by Imam Al-Ghazali raDiy-Allahu-anhu.gif, who in his Ihya 900 years ago, described the "only intellectually rigorous escape from the trap of postmodernity."
He and his his school taught that "no universal statements about the world or the human condition can be reached by purely ratiocinative or inductive methods, because these cannot transcend the material context of the world in which they are framed."[14]

2.4 The Lack of Principles
Secondly has the lack of principles led human civilization into a very unsteady - to say the least - or volatile situation of ever new trends and ideas in all realms of life, not only in natural science, but also in politics, economics, sociology and of course in the emergence of new or not so new religious trends such as the many forms of "New Age".
These are the manifestations of the great confusion of our time, which are not dealt here, but which everyone can see with his own eyes.
Instead of presenting the means for calming man's egotism (nafs) and evil desires this modern superficiality and confusion is leading modern societies into ever greater divisions and to ”creating ever greater artificial needs,” which cannot be even satisfied in a life of 1000 years.[15]

2.4.1 The Reduction of Human Nature
When the modern perception of reality had thus been reduced to the material and profane level, it also reduced human nature to its physical and psychological aspects.

However the human soul is not only a psychic entity, but first of all a spiritual one, which is its principal aspect. This is according to the traditional teaching of all world religions and metaphysical doctrines:
Thus man has (not two but) *three* levels of being:
the physical, the psychic or psychological and the spiritual.

The ”seat or organ of spirituality” is mentioned in the words of German theologian Meister Eckehart (d.1327):
”There is something in the soul, which is not created and not possible to create (increatum et increabile); if the whole soul were such, it would be not created and not possible to create; and this is the Intellect (intellectus).”
The disadvantageous modernist 'development' therefore stripped man of his divine, sacred potential. This led to a concept of human nature which is "too unstable, changing and turbulent to be able to serve as the principle for something" or anything at all, because it is grounded on the emotional and often irrational levels of being.

The tendency to reduce human nature can even be observed in some overtly exoteric religious circles - influenced by modernism itself, where there may be lipservice to the Divine, but in practice great focus on moral, behavioural or political issues, neglecting the essential demands of the Divine Law, in respect to inner transformation and spiritual striving.[16]


2.4.2 Principles Necessary To Transcend Human Level
However, doctrines and principles are necessary to gain meaning from empirical sense-data and to gain meaning is proof of perfection and permanency, while giving up on the quest for meaning leads to ignorance and despair. As one of the ancient savants, Aristotle, declared:
”The things which are most knowable are first principles and causes; for it is through these and from these that other things come to be known, and not these through the particulars which fall under them.” AM I.ii.6
Man has therefore to prepare himself for a way of life with a special concern, which is a spiritual way of thinking about and engaging in this world, transcending the materialistic, and (only) psychological levels of understanding, while keeping his highest endeavour in this life the Ultimate Concern, this is God - this is Allah.[17]


2.4.3 The Validity of the Modern Sciences
Transcending the materialistic and psychologic levels of understanding is neither intended nor envisaged by modern science. It is quite obvious that neither empiricism, nor validification through induction, nor ”reliance upon the data of the senses as confirmed by reason, (can) serve as principle in the metaphysical sense.”[18] These scientific methods are valid on their own restricted levels leading to results and applications of the sciences which created them, but they are neither able to answer our existential questions nor improve our normal human condition. (”Normal” - meaning: how man was meant to be, normality as sanity[1])

What is worse, modern science has with all its inventions brought about a serious disequilibrium in this world - despite its partial benefits - , precisely because of it being divorced from - and its inability of taking account of - the higher principles, even if this may not always have been the intention of the individual scientist.[21]


2.5 The Theory of Evolution

2.5.1 As Weapons Against Religious Thought
The theory of evolution, being a very pervasive modern theory, has been one of the strongest weapons against religious thought in the West, at first against the Christian faith, later against traditional thought and religious belief in general.

”Our belief in evolution and our worship of progress ... are modernist dogmas which have [in the Western and in the modern world] specifically replaced (among others) Christian charity and hope in Divine Providence.” SAC403
Once Darwin ”with his half-baked theory of evolution”[22] had refuted the doctrin of creation; faith in God itself, the Almighty, was shattered and the truth of the Bible ridiculed. The argument of man descending from a (shadowy) ape was later applied against the truth of every Divine Revelation. (see 2.5.3)


2.5.2 As If A Proven Scientific Fact
Not only in the West of the 18th century but globally in the world today the theory of Evolution ”is paraded around as if it were a proven scientific fact,” and instead of bothering to seek for proofs for this quasi-theory, and after generations of indoctrination - especially by passing years through the educational system - most people have become convinced by and have accepted 'evolution' as an irrefutable truth. But would one dig deeper into the theory of macroevolution[23], one would swiftly discover those many inconsistencies and assumptions it makes, because the theory is unscientific and because there are no proofs.[24]

Many contemporary scientists have acknowledged the defects of this theory, but their criticism is not much publicised, and if it is publicised, it has rarely come to the attention of the general public. What remains today as 'contemporary popularized science' is not always what has been refuted by many sincere scientists years ago.[25]


2.5.3 The Pervasiveness of The Theory of Evolution
The theory of evolution has become pervasive in such a way that its proponents are referring to evolution as a blueprint for human development in general and by transferring the idea of evolution to completely different areas of human thought, such as sociology, history, politics and even the arts.[26]

So for example in psychology we now have something called 'evolutionary psychology', or 'sociobiology', the latter indending for psychology to ”be put on a biological and cultural basis.”[27]
Or the insidious trend - when some personal suffering comes to the open - of getting rid of compassion, thinking that it may ”signal to your social-Darwinian competitors, that you are probably not fitted to survive because insufficiently ‘evolved.’”[28]
But psychology is really the knowledge of the soul - of all its levels and functions. Evolutionists are only concerned with its coarse and lowest levels. However, studying monkeys individually or in flock[29] will not increase our knowledge of the essential qualities of man, much less of any higher states of being by which the human species has been honoured over the rest of creation.[30]
Thus the theory of evolution has become a pseudo-religion, explaining this and that and almost everyhting, even the otherwise unexplainable! For its logical absurdity and a survey of the main scientific facts see for example L. Bournoure and D. Dewar.[31]

2.5.4 Its Most Important Features
Its most important features and 'shortcomings' are that it "refuses to see permanence anywhere, and that (for this theory) the greater somehow 'evolves' from the lesser and (that it) is totally blind to the higher states of being. This in itself is but a result of that loss of principles alluded above."[32]

Thus is the state of the modern world in which we are living, that in the words of S H Nasr:
”Evolutionism is but a desperate attempt to fill the vaccum created by modern man's 'cutting off' of the 'Hands of God' from His creation and negating any principle above the merely human, which then falls of necessity to the level of the subhuman. Once the [Transcendant] Principle is forgotten, the world becomes a circle without centre and this experience of the loss of the centre remains an existential reality for anyone who accepts the theses of modernism, whether he be [a Jew], a Christian or a Muslim.” [32]


2.5.5 Man Did Not 'Evolve'
As long as man has lived on this earth he has had a traditional outlook or perspective on life, which is proven by the heritage of mankind, especially by the various holy scriptures. In those times past he put his trust on the Higher Being, God, Allah and lived under His protection and guidance. In normal circumstances, man was neither just an individual with a mind but without a heart, nor just a heap of molecules in a DNA-string: thank God the human mind is indefinitely more than electrical signals running through nerve-threads.
According to the Islamic tradition, man - as God's viceregent -has a potential for knowing God and to choose what is better and more beautiful in any given situation.
The traditional outlook on life is opposed to the modern or postmodern way of seeing reality, in fact the two are irreconcilable. Man has always been man, he did not have to evolve from some lower being, from an ape or a fish… The idea of bringing out the higher from the lesser is a modern myth, it is both illogical and unscientific![33] In the words of Charles Upton:

”The projection of this false myth of progress on biology results in the ideology known as 'evolutionism', the doctrin that the less is the causal origin of the greater, that the higher and more complex life forms, including man, have developed incrementally from simpler forms. The Traditionalists, on the other hand, teach that the advent of new life forms, which the fossil record shows to be more discontinuous than continuous - thus calling Darwin's 'natural selection of random mutations' into serious question - actually represents the descent of matter-organizing spiritual archetypes from the higher planes of Being, in response to God's creative word. These 'Platonic Ideas' of species then draw themselves the matter they need in order to construct physical vehicles for their life in space and time.”[34]

2.6 The Idea of An Earthly Utopia
Nowadays in the age of unhindered individualism and postmodern deconstruction of 'tall stories' and all-encompassing ideas and 'worldviews' and due to the recent disappointments in socio-political engineering ( faschism, communism ) the ideas of progress and utopia have lost much of their attraction. But while these ideas had to 'retreat' somewhat from the level of political discourse, they still form the imagination of average, individual man and woman. They are still forming their mentality including their ideas of personal accomplishment, seeing that everyone seems to be his own forlorn master in the ungodly endeavour of an earthly paradise.

It can be shown that the idea of continous human progress (nowadays individual progress) towards some kind of earthly (individualistic) utopia is related to and sustained by the allround-theory of evolution.
As in the latter, so for example in technological or today in biogenetic development, it is generally maintained and taken for granted, that man's situation will but improve, that 'things will turn out alright' and 'everything will be fine'. But what if this solely technological progress is combined with social and moral regression and creeping corruption, which is obviously the case?
What if the broken promises by political leaders and technocrats lead to a growing climate of disappointment and dispair, when average man has nowhere to turn - not even to consumerism?
What if utopianism is just another vain dream amidst the bleak prospects for man's godless future?
Anti-traditional ideas of an utopia and progress have even penetrated quite a few fundamentalist minds inside the world-religions. This shift of emphasis toward the materialistic ("das Grobstoffliche") is one of the symptoms of the decadence of time as foretold by the Prophet of Islam .

So it is not surprising, that the greater the loss of true spirituality in a community, the stronger will be the imagination of some kind of earthly paradise.
When analyzing recent history in the West it is not difficult to realize the dire consequences which this modernist idea of human progress has had during ”the era of democracy and progress” of the 20th century:
This modernist idea has wrought wars and chaos upon the world on an unprecedented scale, and it will regrettably continue doing so.
The price which people have to pay - for turning their back to Tradition - has been very high, and in the case of some recent muslim political experience has ”led and still leads to deep social and political upheavals whose goals and methods (are) completely alien to the ethos and aims of traditional Islam.”[35]

2.7 The Loss of The Sense of The Sacred
Finally one more charactersitic of modern thought is the loss of the sense of the sacred, which - among all of the symptoms of modern and postmodern thought - is its most devastating consequence. The reduction of intellect to reason and in postmodernism, the abolishment of any universal acceptable concept of reason(!) has made sacred knowledge ”inaccessible and to some even meaningless.”[36]

This state of affairs has to be taken into account in any analysis of modern mentality, because without this sense of the sacred, tradition will never be correctly understood.
On top of this has Islam itself been affected - in the minds of some of our contemporaries - by 'the wheel of time', in this case by the modernist concept of "rationality". This has as a consequence tended in some quarters to reduce this wonderful religion (dîn) to only one of its dimensions, namely to outer dimensions of the Sharî'ah and to ”divest it of those intellectual weapons which alone can ward off the assaults of modern thought upon its citadel.”[20]

But as Islam is a living tradition lasting to the end of time, it will also avert those modernist attacks. This we know from the authority of our religion.
However, there is no doubt that the intellectual challenges posed by modernism in the form of evolutionism, rationalism, existentialism, agnosticism, individualism, nihilism and the like and by postmodernism with its deconstructionism, can only be answered intellectually, those challenges can neither be confronted juridically nor militarily.



3. What Prevented Modernism In Islamic Thought
Yes, there is the Divine imperative of using reason, but Islam has never forgotton the restrictions on human reason and has always deeply venerated the principles which transcend human thought. So reason - roughly corresponding to `aql - was always open to higher levels of knowledge, i.e. sacred knowledge and Islamic metaphysics (al-`ilm ilâhiyyah).

In Islam there is no modernism, because there can nothing be more modern, ie new and shining in its light of truth than the Islamic message, because it transcends time.
A utopia, meaning the place which is not anywhere on this earth, or a perfect society in this world of fitna or tribulation is not an Islamic concept, as it disregards the dichotomy and conditions of the two worlds: the perfect state is only to be found with God and in the Here-After. So, what is reminiscent to the idea of a utopia is really the Divine Presence in the dunya (in this life) and in the akhira, the Here-After.[39]
In the secularised, de-Christianized West however, utopianism seeked ”to establish a perfect social order by purely human means.” Lately (~1990ies) this search for an utopia has found new expressions in feminism, or environmental issues, which can have valid arguments. But this utopianism ”disregards the presence of evil in this world in the theological sense and aims at doing without God, as if it were possible to create an order based on goodness but removed from the source of all goodness.”[37]

1st. First of all and in contrast to the profane models of development and ordering of society, Islamic development is always dependant on the Divine, the Master of Creation, Allah (may His Majesty be exalted).
2nd. Secondly, there is no societal or other development of any kind unless there is 'inner development', ie. purification and growth (tazkiyyah) at a personal, spiritual level.[38]
3rd. Thirdly, the Islamic description of a perfect society is primarily identified with the prophetic period of al-Madina. This is a time in human history, when the Messenger of Allah guided the Muslims to become a growing and self-purifying community (ummah) of faithful (al-muminûn), a community which was centered around the divine message and the living exemplification of it, i.e. the Messenger of Allah .
As there cannot be a better leader and spiritual teacher than the Holy Prophet , there cannot be a better society either, and every future society has to measure up to this pattern.
Or, otherwise, the perfect society in Islam is beyond this earthly plane, it is more a point of reference than a locus for political maneuvering.
So, what prevented - until quite recently - the growth of utopianism in the Islamic sphere is:
a.) Islamic realism, that on earth imperfection cannot be eliminated,

b.) The awareness inspired by the Quran and the hadith that there is a deteriorization (decadence) in time, i.e. "the gradual loss of perfection in the Islamic community as it moves away from the origin of revelation".
Compare with the authentic hadith: The holy Prophet Muhammad said:

”The best people are those living in my generation, then those coming after them, and then those coming after” (the second generation) and that

c.) Any improvement in society (if not a perfection of it) can only come about with the help of God.[31]


4. True Science Is Based On The Intellect
In modernism reason is conceived as a purely human activity, cut off from the Transcendant and in postmodernism one is set to deconstruct reason by taking hold of and referring to the irrational levels of the human psyche, whereas in traditional sciences the human mind is understood as being a mirror of the Divine Mind. The picture produced on the mirror is the product of the Picture-maker reflecting Itself on it.

Hence tradition has always held that the organ ”and container of knowledge is not the human mind but ultimately the Divine Intellect.” Therefore ”true science is not based on purely human reason but on the Intellect which belongs to the supra-human level of reality, yet illuminates the human mind.”[40]
”When Descartes uttered, 'I think, therefore I am (cogito ergo sum), he placed his individual awareness of his own limited self as the criterion of existence, for certainly the 'I' in Descartes' assertion was not the Divine 'I' who, through Hallâj, exclaimed, 'I am the Truth' (ana'l Haqq): The Divine 'I' which alone, according to traditional sources has the right to say 'I'. Until Descartes, it was Pure Being, the Being of God, which determined human existence and the various levels of reality. But with Cartesian rationalism, individual human existence became the criterion of reality and also the truth.”[40]
And what could be of more success to earthly man than to link up his intellect to the higher Intellect, which is not of his own and which is unrestricted and independent of place and time.[41]

See: S H Nasr: < Islam and Modern Science >


5. A More Worthy Source of Knowledge Than Reason
To gain immediate and direct knowledge the man of (Islamic) Tradition transcends human reason and rationality. This can be achieved by applying his intellectual intuition, always in the context of the sacred texts of revelation ( nuzûl ) and the prophetic guidance (hidâyah).
This intellectual intuition has nothing to do with simple imagination or the kind of "intuition" as it it generally understood, instead it is divinely granted to those worthy of it, "it is immutable and infallible in itself and the only starting point for all development in conformity with the traditional norms"[42], i.e. it is the indispensible (spiritual) agent to comprehend the truth of the divine principles.
”The Muslim intellectual saw revelation as the primary source of knowledge, not only as the means to learn the laws of morality concerned with the active life. He was also aware of the possibility of man purifying himself until the 'eye of the heart' (`ayn al-qalb), residing at the centre of his being, would open and enable him to gain direct vision of the supernatural realities. Finally he accepted the power of reason to know, but this reason was always attached to and derived sustenance from revelation on the one hand, and intellectual intuition on the other.”[43]
Other descriptions of the intellectual intuition are: vision, unveiling and wisdom (shuhûd, kashf or dhauq and Hikmah) – which are all the way firmly rooted in the traditional, religious universe of Islamic thought; they are given as a grant from God - Allah, may His Majesty be exalted and it is He Who gives to whom He pleases.




6. The Islamic Concept of Man
By following the Quranic revelation and the prophetic pattern of conduct [44], a Muslim is not only capable of rendering his life in its religious, social, political and economical aspects in harmony with the intention of his Creator, seeking His pleasure, - but he may also gain direct insight into the higher realities.[45]

This following (of the two above) includes to tread the path of purification of - and introspection into - his soul all the time being led by the Grace of God, as it was shown for man of all ages by the Perfect Man on earth, Prophet Muhammad .
To succeed in both worlds man has to be good and to do good and the source of all goodness is God. At the time of the convenant of the 'alast', before the creation, the souls were aware of and knew God, this is the pristine creation - al-fitrah.
In this life (dunya) man is created to serve and to worship no other than Allah, may His Majesty be exalted, who is his Lord and Sustainer, because it is to Him he will ultimately return.
His worship includes and hinges on his endeavour to purify[44] his inner self (soul) - by the grace of God - so that it may become a mirror of the Divine Qualities, such as Ar-Rahmân (The All-Compassionate). The fundamentals of the dîn - tradition (or 'religion') are the channels through which he can redress his animal soul - ego (nafs) and finally become the vice-regent of Allah (khalîfah) in this world - this is the true fulfillment of being human.
In the next world (al-âkhirah) man will be created in a state which corresponds to his intentions and actions in the life of the world (dunya), and the judgement is Allah's alone.
This teaching of the Real was valid in the old days of the 'Golden Ages' and this teaching is valid today, be it moderism or post-moderism we live in, until the end of time.
How to live as a believer and as a Muslim in the (post-)modern world, treading the path of pure religion (Islam), upright, seeking Allah Almighty's Good Pleasure only (rid.wân), has to be the main issue - also today.[45] This spiritual quest includes first of all re-turning to Allah, that is sincere taubah and studying the principles of the dîn in order to implement them in our lives from this day onwards.

See also: S H Nasr The Islamic Conception of Man


7. Living In (Post-) Modernity
To live in this age of (post-) modernity means as above mentioned, to walk the path of pure religion, upright, seeking Allah Almighty's pleasure only. Neither does not mean to be involved in hatred or seeking to reduce Allah's mercy (raHma) towards other human beings, nor to be occupied with minor, marginal issues, but to focus on the fundamentals of the religion; Islam = 5.
Concerning the validity of some 'modern appearances', Nasser Gazi commented on this and said:
This is a difficult question and "one which would be hard to generalise on. It is clear that we cannot go back to the Middle Ages or to convert the world (both East and West) into some traditionally oriented society. What can be done is to try and trace the traditional doctrines back to their metaphysical roots, and thence try and apply them anew. Each aspect of modernism would have to examined individually in the light of this.
Moreover, it is not the 'modern appearances' which are in question, but that what underlies the appearances that matter. Not everything that is modern is anti-traditional."
What man has lost is immensely much, and what he has gained through the process of modernisation is flimsy in comparison, but to mention a few areas:
- a certain amount of freedom (?!) - mostly diverting towards negative individualism and consumerism for the 'fortunate few' in this world;
- the rule of law - even when those man-made laws often discriminate against the poor and downtrodden, and seem to be more a charade than real;
- human rights - f. ex. publicly denouncing inhumane treatment of prisoners, but always ignoring the human responsibilities especially towards the Master of Creation.
- a certain level of freedom of speech - when inside the given frames of what is 'politically correct'; so for example very little criticism of Zionism,
- a certain standard of health care, but which is eroding in the West.


Those Muslims living in the West do well to improve life in society, steering away from nihilism, egotism, materialism and sectarianism - in such a way as shown by the exemplary person in human history - the Prophet of Islam MHMD - who is a mercy for the whole universe for all time.

8. References
Quranreferences: QR 5-3
  Quran: Sura al-Mâidah (5), verse 3:This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion.
QR 8-53
  Quran: Sura al-Anfâl (8), verse 53:This is because Allah has never changed a favor which He has conferred upon a people until they change their own condition; and because Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
QR 24-19
  Quran: Sura an-Nur (24), verse 19:Allah knows, while you do not know. UP
QR 34-22
  Quran: Sura al-Mulk (34), verse 22:Say: Call upon those whom you assert besides Allah; they do not control the weight of an atom in the heavens or in the earth nor have they any partnership in either, nor has He among them any one to back (Him) up.
QR 102-7
  Quran: Sura at-Takâthur (102), verse 7:Then you shall most certainly see it with the eye of certainty;    



literature references: CMW: Crisis of The Modern World; René Guénon / 'Abd al-Wâhid Yahya; some quotes
EW: East and West; René Guénon; some quotes
KS: Knowledge And The Sacred; Seyyed Hossein Nasr; State University of New York Press 1989
SAC: The System of Antichrist; Truth And Falsehood In Postmodernism & New Age; Charles Upton; Sophia Perennis, NY 2001
To order it: www.seriousseekers.com
TIM: Traditional Islam In The Modern World; Seyyed Hossein Nasr;
DRG: Dictionnaire de René Guénon, Jean-Marc Vivenza; Éditions Le Mercure Dauphinois, Grenoble 2005
IPOP: Islamic philosophy from its origin to the present, Seyyed Hossein Nasr
see related pages on our site: What Is Normal And What Normality?
Crisis of The Modern World
Frequent Questions About Islam And Religion - FAQ
The Nature of Sacred Knowledge see related pages on external sites: In The Spirit of Tradition, by Nazim Baksh
“Unfortunately, many Muslims today have swallowed the false discursive assumption that tradition is something static. Therefore, in order to move forward, they [feel they] have to tear themselves away from the past and embrace the modern, and by extension, the post-modern, with all its technological gadgetry, and its shifting house of virtues and ethics.”

Reflections On Islam And Modern Life, Seyyed Hossein Nasr
On the encounter between Islam and modern thought.

The Fall of the Family: Boys will be Boys; Gender identity issues;
Shaikh Abdal-Hakim Murad
On feminism…

Islam and the New Millennium; Abdal Hakim Murad
For the Western Muslim, who understands what moves and influences Westerners
“A society only becomes truly decadent when "decadence" as a principle is never referred to in public debate...” Abdal Hakim Murad [more quotes below: ]
[ Good insight in modern mentality and myths, with very good style of language ]

Postmodernity and the Crisis of "Truth", M. A. Muqtedar Khan
[undue antagonism of postmodernism against modernism, mingling up the latter with some traditional concepts]




In: Islam and the New Millennium A H Murad focuses on:
- world population trends, growing Muslim population
- religious change /the takfir phenomenon or the threat of neo-Khariji heresy,
- global warming and the degradation of the natural environment. This situation, however, is more threatening in the Muslim world.
He writes:
'Perhaps our activists will still be choking out their rival rhetoric on the correct way to hold the hands during the Prayer, while they breath in the last mouthful of oxygen available in their countries. 'We have to be able to understand secular thought and refute it' 'We need to capitalise on the modern Western love of Islamic spirituality - and also of Islamic art and crafts.' 'Millions of young Westerners are dissatisfied both with the materialism of their world, and with the doctrines of Christianity, and are seeking refuge in New Age groups and cults. Those people should be natural recruits for Islam - and yet we ignore them.'


Footnotes:

1: An example: What Is Normal And What Normality? Hasan Le Gai Eaton
2: axial: i.e. related to the vertical axis, to the heavenly dimensions.
3: Tradition is the light for human kind, and in the case of Islam, the Prophet MHMD was named a Light.
4: The Verse of the Throne, Ayat al Kursi آية الكرسي Surah al-Baqarah 2: 255
5: from The Electronic Labyrinth
6: God’s creation: We describe Allah in the way that He has described Himself.
7: Charles Upton, SAC
8: Positivism & Post-Positivism
8: From Cosmology: A Cosmic Perspective", no link 20130824
9: Charles Upton, SAC33
10: EW216
11: TIM103
12: EW
13: Islam and Modern Science, Lecture by S H Nasr
”The historians and philosophers of science in the last twenty [or] thirty years have shown beyond the scepter of doubt that modern science has its own world view. It is not at all value free; nor is it a purely objective science of reality irrespective of the subject you study. It is based upon the imposition of certain categories upon the study of nature, with a remarkable success in the study of certain things, and also a remarkable lack of success [in others], depending on what you are looking at.”
14: A H Murad
15: Instead of curbing those desires, reducing unnecessary needs and leading man towards conditions which would allow for a more contemplative and pious way of life. - The above quote is from CMW92
16: see for example:
Modernized Muslims And Architecture, by S H Nasr
Effects Of Westernization Upon Muslims, by S H Nasr
17: see also: Is Belief In God Enough?
18: TIM
20: TIM109
21: See for example: Review (of) The Quantum Enigma, by S H Nasr Among other topics on ”the false premise of Cartesian dualism and bifurcation according to which reality is divided radically into res cogitans, the knowing subject, and res extensa or the objective world.”
22: Imran Khan, not traced.
23: However the definition of macroevolution vs. microevolution has been changing over time in evolutionary theory: ”In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time into another … but the term is not restricted to those higher levels.”
24: TIM105
25: See also Evolution Deceit, by H Yahya
26: The idea of evolution, of Darwinism and the dominance of the stronger were part and parcel of the one of the most pernicious ideologies of the 20th century, Fascism.
27: evoyage.com - assumptions
28: SAC283
29: The Evolution of Prejudice; Scientists see the beginnings of racism in monkeys /// the results support an evolutionary basis for prejudice…
30: Allah says in the Holy Qur'an:
{ Surely We have honoured the children of Adam, and carried them on land and sea… } Sura 17-70; honoured all of mankind.
31: quoted in TIM or Evolution Deceit
32: TIM106
33: Imagine a piece of computer evolving - by accident - from its integrated IC-circuits, from its bits and zeros into the machine which it is - without the mind to design it and programme it! How much less is this conceivable in the - much more complex - biological domain of life itself!
34: SAC105
35: TIM107 and see also: New Kharijism; Sh. M. Hisham Kabbani or Superficial demonization of Islam; GFH
36: KS4
37: TIM107
40: TIM100
42: CMW
43: TIM102
44: For following the prophetic pattern of conduct; see: The Principles of Tasawwuf
45: Other texts on this site are meant to provide some waypoints.
46: See also: On Tradition, and Texts On Tradition And ”Traditionalism”
 

Islam and the Crisis of Modernity

Modernity is facing a crisis today. And, it is a crisis not of power but of meaning, not of the efficacy of modern instruments but of the legitimacy of modern goals, not of the ability of modernity’s champions to carry its project forward but of the ultimate beneficence and morality of the project itself. For modern societies are not helpless at facing the inner challenges of governance and economy, primary determinants of the human condition according to the modernist scheme of things, nor are modern polities vulnerable to any threats by external enemies. No, there are no slaves within the walls of modern Rome, or any hordes of barbarians at its gates. And yet, the denizens of the modern city are not celebrating, they are not jubilant and exultant but feel puzzled and chastised. Puzzled because their global city is not a city of humanity, chastised because of the realization that no city in history can ever incarnate perfect harmony, justice or truth. Thus, to their dismay, they have discovered that the promise of modernity to create its own Utopia, the Cosmopolis of humanity, will forever remain unfulfilled, that not all the modernity’s men and horses will be able to put the Humpty-Dumpty of our humanity together again.
It is only in this sense, namely the inability of modern reason to redeem its promise of delivering a model of perfect historical order, that the expression ‘crisis of modernity’ has any legitimacy and it is to this intellectual impasse that the present reflection is devoted. The crisis, then, comes to light through the insight of contemporary philosophy that modernity is no longer able to function as a doctrine, that it can lay no claims to possessing any coherent worldview or meaningful cosmology. Or, stated differently, all the normative claims of modernity, its umpteen prescriptions for societal utopias and development projects, are no more than cultural and historical prejudices of the civilization in command. These are the arguments of power, by power, for power. The discourse of reason is no less of a historical construct than that of revelation and just as authoritarian and hegemonic.
History Sovereign over Theory
Paradoxically, modern (Enlightenment) reason, which prided itself on its discovery of history and made the grand metaphysical claim about historical existence and not some kind of transtemporal eternity being the true home of man, is now humbled by the most disastrous upshot of its own truth. For the logic of quis custodiet ipsos custodies (Who guards, in turn, the guardians?) compels it to acknowledge that reason itself is a product of history and not some trans-historical criterion of right and wrong! Or, that there exits not one universal Reason but a host of local, historical and contingent reasons. The eternal question of philosophy about the nature of the best regime, and the inescapable query of every human soul about the goal and end of human existence cannot, therefore, be settled within the courtroom of reason
However, this humbling of reason before the mystery of human existence is no cause for shame for the neo-orthodoxy of relativism. On the contrary, the failure of Enlightenment reason to overcome the recalcitrance of history against theory is taken as a proof of the intractable and arbitrary nature of all truth-claims. Truth according to the gospel of nihilism is nothing but the mask of reason that power wears; it is a verbal game, a discursive strategy to maintain the hegemony of the powers that be. All universal schemes, all grand theories, all meta-narratives – religions as well as ideologies, political doctrines as well as methodologies of social engineering – have therefore no legitimacy for the enlightened post-metaphysical being
Earlier, at the defining moment of modernity, there was no amazement at the mystery of human existence, no humility before the intractability of the human condition and no awe for the concealment (ghayba) of Being that inform all modernist and postmodernist discourses today. On the contrary, it was asserted that since philosophy’s unmasking of the ‘cunning of reason’ revealed an identity of the rational and the real, a congruence of the normative and the empirical, history had come to an end and the timeless Utopia of mankind was at hand. All that a society needed to do was to emulate the example provided by the European spirit, to follow the curve of its progress and development in ‘universal history’, and the rewards of a perfect social order would be its. The discovery of history as a system, as a decipherable norm of reason and a predictable goal of development, thus transformed history into sociology and opened the floodgates of the utopian technologies of social engineering. All the suffering and misery that ensued in the wake of these experiments, indeed the legitimisation of the politics of genocide and ethnic cleansing that is also the gift of utopian modernity, can be attributed directly to the claims that human reason had, in the unfolding of the European Geist and in the march of the nation-state in history, discovered the true end of man!
Today we know that the moral and intellectual impasse that any ‘universal’ philosophy of history creates cannot be overcome by remaining faithful to the original claims of modernity, namely by asserting the ability of reason to prescribe a perfect norm for historical existence. Indeed, from the moral point of view, the antinomy of norm and history that is inescapable within the paradigm of Enlightenment can be abolished only if we say farewell either to universal reason or to universal morality. For a reason that determines the course of world history is a reason that is also sovereign over moral will, just as a history that follows the dictates of the moral will necessarily renders superfluous any regime of a universal and sovereign reason. If morality be the exercise of free will, it cannot operate within restraints of any kind including those of reason; similarly, if reason be the essence of man, it cannot stop short of prescribing norms that are true for ‘all times and climes’. Hence, this deadlock can be removed by any of the two strategies: Either one accepts the sovereignty of existence (history) over norm (theory) and banishes morality from the discourse of reason altogether, or one upholds the primacy of the norm, but then exiles history form this theoretical vision. Either a normless historicity or a historical normativity, either a scheme of (trans-historical) reason or a disorder of (para-rational) history! Whatever the choice, morality is either subsumed by theoretical rationality or consumed by political contingency.
Paradoxically, then, the legacy of Enlightenment that causes the greatest Angst to the modern soul springs from the insight that the human condition, when eliminated of its transcendental moorings, appears ‘beyond good and evil’. Either the goal of humanity, that renders its suffering bearable and meaningful, lies outside the horizon of history, or man is simply a ‘meaning-creating animal’ who is the source of her own morality. In actual practice, however, this crisis has merely paved the way for the rule of contemporary nihilism. For as the modern world finds it increasingly difficult to conceive a distinction between good and evil that is not grounded in human will and design, and yet discovers that normative judgments cannot be supported by empirical claims, it has begun to despair of the possibility of, ultimately, sustaining any distinction between right and wrong. By renouncing the possibility of transcendence and inaugurating the sovereignty history over theory, modern man has chosen to live a world without norms. His is a cognitive universe that lacks the possibility of moral judgment.
From Doctrine to Anti-Doctrine
Today, modernity is metamorphosing itself from a doctrine to an anti-doctrine. Instead of claiming any ‘truth’ for its model of the inner and outer worlds, it is now pleading that the notion of ‘truth’ itself be abolished, at least within the domains of philosophy and science. Modernist (Kantian) philosophy was/is proud of its ability to demarcate a clear line between reason and non-reason. It posits an identity of reason and knowledge; what lies within the limits of reason is known or knowable, and what lies outside its domain is unknowable and hence conjectural. (Indeed, reason has now been reduced to experience, to pure senseperception!) So, the dilemma before the modern man is that she could either remain within the bounds of reason and learn to coexist with the uncertainty of all truth and the partiality of all knowledge, or she may step outside the borders of reason and may create some sense of meaning by conceiving and imaging the whole, but she may do so only with the assurance that such a ‘whole’ would always be arbitrary and unverifiable. One is thus confronted with the frustrating incongruence of knowledge and meaning, the conflict between the method – rationality – of science, which by its very empirical nature is necessarily reductionist, and man’s search for meaning, which is unable to shun the ‘unscientific’ questions of totality and ultimacy.
Significantly, reason now seeks refuge in the anti-doctrinaire modernism of modernity and conceives its task as that of the ‘de-construction’ of the modernist subject, the uncovering of the underlying metaphysical foundation of its discourses, and the de-divinization of all language and discourse. Indeed, according to Richard Rorty, the most outspoken spokesmen of this philosophy, ‘truth is merely a property of language; that where there are no sentences, there is no truth; and that the idea that world decides which descriptions are true no longer makes sense.’ Moreover, it also follows that ‘since only descriptions of the world can be true or false, only sentences can be true, truth is contingent upon the ability of human beings to make languages in which to phrase sentences.’ Positing an identity of truth and language, the debunker of modernity and its metaphysics then reaches a point where we humans ‘no longer worship anything, where we treat nothing as quasi-divinity, where we treat everything – our language, our conscience, our community – as a product of time and chance.’
Consequently, the anti-modernist utopia may now be spelt out as ‘the culture of liberalism’ that would be ‘enlightened and secular, through and through. It would be one in which no trace of divinity remained, either in the form of a divinized world or a divinized self. Such a culture would have no room for the notion that there are nonhuman forces to which human being should be responsible. It would drop, or drastically reinterpret, not only the idea of holiness but those of “devotion to truth” and “fulfillment of the deepest needs of the spirit”. The process of de-divinization…. would, ideally, culminate in our no longer being able to see any use for the notion that finite, mortal, contingently existing human beings might derive the meaning of their lives from anything except other finite, mortal, contingently existing human beings.’
Modernity’s main achievement, if you follow this logic, is to have advanced a set of claims, about reason, man and history, which, with the maturing of its reflection, she was able to dispose off as false! And it is this discovery, that the axioms and givens of modernity have been fallacious, which is now hailed as reason’s greatest contribution to our understanding of the human condition. Still, this failure does not dim the modernist light or cast any shadow on the modernist project. For the assertion is that it is not merely modernity that is unable to validate itself from its own criteria of rationality, but that all philosophies of the whole, all universal histories, all doctrines of salvation, all visions of an End are unverifiable/falsifiable and hence unscientific and non-rational. Modernity is, you may say, a spoilsport; if she cannot have it her way, she’ll not allow anyone to play at all!
Reason seeks a Foundational Text
The crisis of modernity is most starkly encountered in the deconstruction movement that pulls reason down from its transcendent, and empirically unassailable, throne of universality and consigns it to a regime within history. Though it is not dissimilar to the strategy that modern rationalists earlier applied against the defenders of revelation, the application of the modernist method to the modernist truth has caused much panic in their own ranks. Visibly terrified and confounded by the devastation of their proud heritage which this assault has caused, the champions of modern reason have come to the realization that reason without a foundational text will always remain vulnerable to the nihilistic gaze of historicizing vision, that the corrosive solvent of its relativising epistemologies will always render the modernist truth as one among a multiplicity of contingent and dated untruths. Little wonder that in a last-ditch effort to defend its honour, one of the most outspoken champions of modernism has offered an apology on its behalf which is, most strikingly, nothing less than a panic-stricken plea for the adoption of a dogmatic and fundamentalist line of defence! Reason should defend itself not on the ground of logic and argument, but on that of the axiomatic – incontestable – superiority of its self-confessedly foundational text!
Given the realisation that the intellectual debates of our day have three, rather than the customary two, interlocutors, the late Ernest Gellner classified these primary epistemological orientations as those of: ‘1) Religious fundamentalism, 2) Relativism, 3) Enlightenment rationalism or rationalist fundamentalism.’ (Postmodernism, Reason and Religion. London, 1992. p. 2.) What is remarkable about this apology is that in fighting the ghost of ‘religious fundamentalism’, Gellner’s rationalism can defend itself only as a dogma; that it can meet the challenge of its putative adversary by producing a veritable confessio! For while Gellner is adamant that ‘there is no and can be no Revelation’ (84), he also proclaims, without a trace of diffidence or irony, that the ‘epistemology of Enlightenment’, as enshrined in the Kantian text, is absolute; that it is ‘transcendent twice over’, in ‘being beyond and outside a culture or any culture, and being beyond and outside this world.’! (82). Needless to say that this, perforce incontestable and unfalsifiable, claim about the a priori authority of ‘one’s own text’ is exactly what rationalism dismisses as dogmatic and arbitrary; it constitutes its principal argument against the claim of transcendence on behalf of Revelation! Thus, when Gellner, striking a manifestly sanctimonious posture, laments that ‘the notion of a Revelation favouring and endorsing its own source’ legitimises itself by a ‘blatantly circular argument’, he must be justifiably accused of inexcusable logical incoherence and plain moral duplicity, for his own claim about the cognitive authority of the Kantian text is as arbitrary and ‘blatantly circular’ as any other. Far from proving the cognitive superiority of his own text, Gellner merely lends support to the postmodernist claim that Enlightenment reason is merely one of the contingent texts of history that seeks to establish, in the name of universality and science, the regime of its own hegemonic discourse!
For all its propagation of the (transcendent) ‘cognitive ethic’ of Kant, Gellner’s desperate bid to confer Enlightenment reason a foundational text merely alerts us to the confessional nature of modernism! The authority of reason is thus not of a universal method but that of a transcendent text; for the method itself acknowledges its submission to the text and derives its legitimacy from it! More than anything, then, the ‘fundamentalist’ variety of rationalism is symptomatic of the gravity of the crisis which afflicts modernity today and which renders its discourse dogmatic but also self-defeating. It merits our attention chiefly because it typifies an extremist attempt to preserve the authority of modernity as a doctrine. However, by foreclosing the possibility of revelation, it proclaims the truth of a closed, deterministic universe and, as such, presents itself as an antithesis of religious faith. Needless to say, the fundamentalist and doctrinaire form of modernism cannot be reconciled with the dictates of Islamic faith and conscience and must therefore be dismissed as a falsehood that denies and distorts the ultimately transcendent truth of being, cosmos and man.
Islam’s Dialogue with Chastised Modernism
Fortunately, the intellectual and moral reign of modernist imperialism is over. Modernity has been chastised; it has been forced to become more modest in its truth-claims. Today, even the most outspoken apologists of modernity acknowledge,
- that the truth claims of Enlightenment reason are based on circular logic;
- that the notion of a sovereign, transcendent and ahistorical, subject whose reason is the touchstone of all knowledge is extremely ‘problematic’;
- that the doctrine of progress is ‘paradoxical’;
- that the cult of freedom which renders all ‘taboos’ illegitimate and unnecessary is inimical to the preservation of any kind of moral, and by extension social and political, order;
- that the charter of the modern political community, nay any political community, is always parochial and exclusive;
- that the universality of justice and rights is a metaphysical claim that cannot be redeemed within a socio-political context;
- indeed, that the jurisdiction of both reason and meaning extends far beyond the cosmopolis of modernity
Whatever its other promises or discomforts, the delegitimation of modernity at the level of doctrine has undoubtedly opened a new intellectual space and created a different agenda for a dialogue between modernists and others, within the civilization of Islam as well as between Islam and the West. And, even if so far the true potential of this intellectual opening has not been grasped by any notable thinker on either side, the possibility of a future conciliation and accommodation (in default of a genuine synthesis!) between modernism and religious faith cannot be ruled out. The reasons for such a conjecture are not hard to seek: any debate between two doctrines that each promises a total salvation is not a dialogue; it is not a conversation that is open to the possibility of mutual adjustment. The vehemence of modernity’s encounter with Islam may be explained by the fact that the kind of modernism that was forcefully introduced and dispensed throughout the Muslim world aspired to being more than a mere apology for colonial rule; it presented itself as a universal doctrine of liberation! It had the pretension of propounding a new, scientific, cosmology and worldview, and by consequence, of rendering obsolete all ‘traditional’ worldviews and religions, Islam included, on cognitive grounds
Modernism thus legitimated itself as the epistemology of Reason and advanced universal claims for its truth. Such was their faith in the power of reason and science that modernists earlier could confidently declare that not only were all the secrets of the physical universe within their grasp, but that a ‘universal science of man’, which eliminated the need for every kind of subjective and emotional judgment in societal matters, was going to be the logical end result of this enlightenment. Marxism, of course, was the most extravagant and revolutionary example of the kind of scientific positivism, which, in retrospect, appears so naïve and well-meaning and yet so unintelligent and inexorable. Be that as it may, modernism in its heyday was a supremely arrogant doctrine that claimed to provide a total account of ‘all that is’, and a salvation – the enlightenment of humanity – that ensued from the recognition of this all-inclusive truth. Little wonder, it did come in conflict with Islam with its faith in Allah, the Transcendent God Who is the ultimate source of all meaning and existence but Who, unlike the cosmos of science, cannot be fully comprehended by the faculties of human intelligence. For, God is forever ‘greater than’ any human effort to grasp His essence. He is greater than any account of His being, any image, any metaphor, greater than the cosmos and ‘all that is’ of the sensible and intelligible worlds. For Muslims, any compromise with doctrinaire modernity puts this sense of the Transcendent, and the existential commitment that flows from it, at peril.
It is for similar reasons that any ‘dialogue’ between Islam and ‘Postmodernism’, between a doctrine of Transcendence and Truth and an anti-doctrine that is fundamentalist in its rejection of truth, universality and transcendence, is a contradiction in terms. Not only would any ‘conversation’ between the protagonists of these two irreconcilable metaphysical systems be morally and intellectually pointless, it would also be, from the Islamic standpoint, tactically counterproductive. For such a move will only be tantamount to recognizing that postmodernism, a mere symptom of the crisis of modernism, is the true philosophy of our times, that its insights afford an edifying and emancipating account of our human condition today. No, only a chastised modernism that is cognizant of the limits of reason to produce a cosmology and a worldview, that knows of its complicity in the conception and execution of the imperialist project, but which does not renounce the utopia of a common humanity, can be a partner in the future dialogue with a universalist and ‘non-fundamentalist’ Islam.
Nor can there be any questioning that for all its misgivings and censure of the modernist project, Islam cannot turn its back on the vicegerency (khilafa) of Adam, it cannot renounce the mandate of humanity to act as the agent of Divine will. Thus, any vision of humanity, any philosophy of man, which seeks to improve the human condition, which aspires to extending man’s significance and role in the cosmos, must not be dismissed out of hand as being utopian. The vocation of the Islamic intellect is not to reduce man to insignificance, which paradoxically both modern science and philosophy do, but to guard him against the lure of Prometheanism, to immunize him against the delusion of sovereignty. Within the limits of man’s acceptance of a moral authority higher than his own whims, meliorism as a philosophy and way of life is not necessarily illegitimate. Accordingly, it is not enough that the Muslim thinker merely recognizes the reversal of modernity’s epistemological stance and underscores the aporias, dead ends, of its discourse. No, Muslim thought must not only acquaint itself with the story of Enlightenment reason’s fall from grace, it must also, without falling into the nihilistic abyss of ‘postmodernism’, bring forth a conciliatory vision of a single humanity, and hence renew its commitment to the moral unity of mankind. Whatever the perils of universalism within the ideologies of culture and politics, its indispensable role in the sustenance of a transcendent vision, the sine qua non of Islamic faith, must not be devalued.
Given the admission, within the courtroom of philosophy itself, that the ultimate meaning of human effort and existence is beyond the arbitration of reason, that its regime does not extend to the true home of man, it is but natural that any dialogue between Islam and modernism cannot be consumed by the ‘contingent’ issues of governance, economy, globalisation and so forth. Thus, inasmuch as there exists a compulsion, be it indigenous or foreign, to reduce Islam to governance and identify its essence with a ‘state’, it must be resisted and challenged. For it leads nowhere but to the moral and intellectual wasteland of fundamentalism, to sterile polemics between modernism and Islamism that, paradoxically, both inhabit an immanentist metaphysical universe. To assert this, however, is not to deny either the legitimacy of such a debate, or to minimise the desirability ideological struggle in matters of political actuality.
Nevertheless, a debate on these premises, on grounds of political and civilizational loyalties, does not hold the promise of evolving into a joint reflection on the moral state of the world today. For only an Islam that is true to its calling of being the transcendent faith of humanity and a modernism which is cognizant of its vocation as the doctrine of a method, can summon sufficient humility and self-confidence to carry out such a dialogue on universal morality. Needless to say that for the partisans of civilizational purity, for those who identify Islam and modernity with given political constituencies, such a universalising project holds little attraction
As for those for whom the universality of Islam and the moral unity of man are two sides of the same coin, there is a compelling urgency to initiate a new Islamic discourse that is more detached from the contingent concerns of Muslim polities and their putative others. Islam’s non-negotiable commitment to the ultimately transcendent, and trans-existential, nature of man and his mission in life would further demand that the future Islamic discourse be fully alert to the immensity of being and matter that science has revealed to us. The task of Islamic intellect would be to not to disown this universe but to examine whether the world of science is a meaningful world, whether it can be conceived as a cosmos, universe or nature without the postulation of a transcendent other. Needless to say that any cogent and meaningful metaphysics that has Islamic pretensions will have to rescue science from scientism. The same goes for all other philosophies and worldviews that identify man with genes and posit the annihilation of his being within the world of history and time. Islam’s dialogue with modernity, then, must have a philosophical and intellectual profile, and it must take full cognisance of the metaphysics, ethics and teleology of the Qur’anic revelation. All subsequent Islamic thought and reflection is premised on the accomplishment of this task, as is the integration of various disciplines and perspectives, philosophical, moral, utopian, even social and political, within a normative Islamic discourse.

Saturday, 27 September 2014

Intellect, Reason and Unity Of Being

S H Nasr
(Original source: http://www.livingislam.org/k/ird_e.html)
The tragedy of modern Western philosophy lies, from the Muslim point of view, in confusing intellect and reason. The intellect to which the Sufi doctrine appeals and through which it is understood is that instrument of knowledge which perceives directly. It is not reason which is, at best, its mental image. Intellectus is not ratio. The latter can create and understand philosophy in the usual meaning of the word; only the former can understand metaphysics in its true sense which lies at the heart of the doctrine. To comprehend the doctrine is therefore not just to try to conform ideas to a logical pattern. Nor is it to play with ideas and seek to perform any kind of mental acrobatics. It is a contemplative vision of the nature of things made possible through intellection. The doctrine or metaphysics would be the easiest thing to teach if all men could understand as easily as they can reason. But in fact it is most difficult to explain precisely because only a few are capable of intellection. That is why even within the Tarîqah [i.e. spiritual path within Islam] only a small number are capable of fully comprehending the doctrine.

Doctrine is in a sense the beginning and end of the Path. It comes at the beginning as a knowledge that is 'theoretical' and at the end as one that is realized and lived. Between the two there is a world of difference. Every doctrinal work of Sufism is like a key with which a particular door is opened and through which the traveller must pass until finally, at the end of the road, he realizes in his being the doctrine that he knew 'theoretically' at the beginning. There are those who belittle doctrine in the name of experience. But doctrine is absolutely essential especially at the beginning of the Path when man is lost in the maze of distracting thoughts, and especially in modern times when the confusion in the mental plane makes the possession of a clear vision of the nature of things indispensable. The doctrine at the beginning is like the map of a mountain to be climbed. At the end it is the intimate knowledge of the mountain gained through the actual experience of having climbed it.

Also in the same way that different descriptions can be given of a mountain depending on the angle from which it is being viewed, doctrine is often expressed in terms that may seem contradictory in certain external aspects. But the subject of all the descriptions is the mountain and the content of all the expressions of doctrine is the Truth which each formulation expresses from a certain point of view. In metaphysical doctrines there is no innate opposition, as in schools of philosophy, but complementary forms that reveal the same essence.

All doctrine, as already stated, is essentially the distinction between the Real and the apparent, the Absolute and relative, or substance and accidents. Its cardinal teaching is that only Allah is absolutely Real and consequently this world in which man lives is contingent. Between God, who transcends Being and whose first determination is Pure Being, and this world, which is farthest away from It, there are located a number of other worlds each standing hierarchically above the other in the scale of universal existence. Together they comprise the multiple states of being, which all receive their being from God, while before Him they are literally nothing. Man thus stands before this vast number of worlds above him, and beyond them before the Divine Presence Itself which, although completely transcendent with respect to all domains of the Universe, is closer to man than his jugular vein.

The central doctrine concerning the ultimate nature of reality has usually been called wahdat al-wujûd or the (transcendent) unity of Being. This cardinal doctrine, which is not pantheism, or pan-entheism nor natural mysticism as Western orientalists have called it, is the direct consequence of the Shahâdah. It asserts that there cannot be two completely independent orders of reality or being which would be sheer polytheism or shirk. Therefore, to the extent that anything has being it cannot be other than the Absolute Being. The Shahâdah in fact begins with the lâ, or negation, in order to absolve Reality of all otherness and multiplicity. The relation between God and the order of existence is not just a logical one in which if one thing is equal to another the other is equal to the first. Through that mystery that lies in the heart of creation itself, everything is, in essence, identified with God while God infinitely transcends everything. To understand this doctrine intellectually is to possess contemplative [intuitive] intelligence; to realize it fully is to be a saint who alone sees 'God everywhere'.

(From: Ideals and Realities of Islam, S H Nasr)