“Unlike the traditional ulama, who never go beyond the texts that they read, the modern intellectual will be able to read deeper into the text in a critical, imaginative manner.” (AbdolKarim Soroush)
Actually, among the traditional ulama there are many who “read deeper into the text” albeit more cautiously and using different tools than “modern intellectuals” - they’re perhaps not as well known as the louder, more politically visible ulama - it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. In the same way there are far more superficial, modern intellectuals who are crassly loud, vocal, and shallow in their criticism than ones who truly read deeper into the text and strive to provide real, rooted, truthful and fair alternatives rather than simply rejectionist ones.
It’s a false juxtaposition to set modernity on one side, traditional ulama on the other, and intellectuals in the middle. Rather, there are flawed facets within these groupings (ulama and intellectuals) and their approaches, and there are beneficial and good aspects within each of them. The ulama, the modern intellectuals, and modernity are all fated to interact with and impact one another. Seeking the neutralization or total capitulation or loss of influence of a particular group (such as the ulama) is doomed to failure - it is a ridiculous and dangerous goal to pursue. Interaction on the level of ideas (not political ideology, which too often voices its debate in the form of violence) is inevitable (even if it presently seems remote) and may reduce the distance between seemingly hostile and clashing alternatives, if pursued with sincerity and not as a political weapon.
Modernity and some of the issues (technological, social, and philosophical) it raises can’t simply be sidestepped or avoided, and both the ulama and the “intellectuals” draw upon valuable resources and methodologies in arriving at solutions and responses. (Modernists may not agree with the conclusions of the ulama but this does not mean that some among the ulama have not read deeply in both traditional and modern texts - it simply means they have come to conclusions not favored by the proponents of modernity.) The decidedly difficult task for Muslims is to develop the insight to ascertain a path which is not based on polarization and rejection, violent confrontation, political intimidation, blind acceptance, blind following of ancestral traditions or leaders, false intellectualization of the situation, or fostering a belief that modernity and the difficulties and problems it generates can be ignored or kept forever at bay.
Each era faces its own unique difficulties, its own unexampled challenges and tests - but we are also given the promise that “the Qur’an is not restricted to a certain age or a distinct group of people. What it contains will be fresh, new, and alive for each succeeding generation.” (Imam Jafar al-Sadiq) Each generation that devotes itself to deep study of the Qur’an will draw insight and unfold solutions for the tests that they face in their time. Like the “tree whose root is in this world but whose branches are in the highest heaven” (Qur’an 14:24), its verses open the way to proportion, perspective, and balance within the flux and churn of the physical world. But if the Muslim rejoinder to the imbalance and extremes generated by modernity and its political and economic structures is an imbalanced and extreme political interpretation of the Qur’an, then those Muslims have allowed the lowest aspects of modernity to shape their Islam. Such an Islam becomes a mirror image of modernity, a child of the physical world, severed from metaphysical moorings, lost and adrift in the world of matter.
In seeking answers to the questions raised by modernity and solutions to its problems, those ulama or those intellectuals who engage in deep-seated, knowledgeable, respectful, and sincere interaction with the text of the Qur’an (and other Islamic texts) will manifest approaches and solutions that truly and profoundly satisfy - the rest will play at politics or play with ideological interpretations and what they produce will be deeply dissatisfying.
{ 2 } Comments
Another excellent post Irshaad. Factionalism is usually always a bad thing, for truth is never a perogative of groups. Amongst the ‘ulama there are thinkers with great depth, and likewise in intellectuals. In both categories we also have those with superficial understandings, and also those who are loud and seek the spotlight.
The solutions to the problems of modernity also cannot be achieved by turning the clock back. We have to face modernity and provide alternatives rooted in the Qur’an and the Prophetic Way.
However, your post, if I am reading it correctly, seemed to imply that the place to find those ‘ulama who have gone deep into the heart of texts, is not in the circles ‘ulama with political inclinations. While I absolutely agree that politics is dangerous business, which one should never seek; it seems to me that the some of the most insightful Muslim thinkers in our era have been involved in the political scene. Ayatullah Mutahhari comes to mind here as a rare hybrid of activist and philosopher, and I think he ranks among the greatest Muslim ‘ulama/intellectuals of our age. If there are people who have bridged the gap between the two classes, he would certainly be among them. Deeply rooted in the traditional sciences, while fluent also with the modern thought in the form of a Bertrand Russel or Will Durant. Likewise, Ayatullah Baqir Sadr is another figure that comes to mind. And, of course, Imam Khomeini; I dont think one can argue, after reading a text of his, like Forty Hadith, or after reading some of his poetry, that he never “goes beyond the text that he reads.”
I certainly don’t mean to make this into a political discussion, and I can understand your hesitancy with respect to discussing individual figures who are in most cases quite controversial. However, it seems to me, that in an era in which the West seeks to impose, with an iron fist, its political structures, the ‘ulama are required to respond in some way. Why then, seek depth exlusively from those who avoid shouldering political responsibility (though often it is for very good reason)?
Salaam alaikum Mohammed,
Thanks for your insightful elaboration and for questioning what I skirted around in my post. I grew up reading the works of the ulama you mention - their writings as well as their actions amidst the turbulence of their times had a profound impact upon me (and continue to do so) and certainly much of what I write emerges from that influence. I believe their engagement in the sphere of politics emerged in a cohesive and principled manner from their deep understanding of the religion. In other words, they lived their religion (not superficially but deeply, totally). They had a responsibility to their society and from this arose the necessity of action (long-term, patient, and steadfast action) and interaction with the dominant forces of the wider world - their metaphysics determined their methods and goals. They were those ulama…“who engage in deep-seated, knowledgeable, respectful, and sincere interaction with the text of the Qur’an (and other Islamic texts) and manifested approaches and solutions that truly and profoundly satisfy.”
However, the term ulama today refers to a vast range of scholars in the Sunni world as well as among the Shia, some of whom (due to violent and turbulent circumstances) are engaged in a somewhat frenzied, panicked, and impatient circle of action and reaction. In that impatience and under the immense pressure of western hegemonic ambitions, political ideology tends to rise hierarchically above the metaphysics of religion (the religion is re-interpreted to fit the ideology). “It becomes a matter where religion does not shape politics (politics does not unfold cohesively from the principles of the religion) but rather politics of desperation or outrage may shape and distort the interpretation of the religion - in this way religion and violent politics can, at times, become dangerously conflated (and dangerously intertwined with a misanthropic impulse to purge the society of non-conforming elements). But the root is politics (and fear), not religion.” (from Hermeneutics of Takfir)
Those whose actions arise from a real metaphysical connection and from truly profound readings of the Qur’an are in every age in the minority - but they are nevertheless present. As Imam Ali pointed out to Kumayl, this situation is not new:
“Here (and he pointed to his chest) is abundant knowledge. If only I could come upon people to bear it. Indeed I have come upon those who are not faithful to it - who took it hastily and did not imbibe and protect it (they sought it superficially, for their own ends). Such people seek to use the tools of religion for (advancement) in this world. They use the devices of belief as a means of attaining domination (and power) over God’s friends (through the authority of religion).” (Imam Ali - Nahjul Balagha)
These will play at politics or play with ideological interpretations and what they produce will be deeply dissatisfying.
Post a Comment