|
Discourse
on Modernity, An Intellectual Triviality By Ibraheem
A. Waziri Email:
iawaziri@yahoo.com "Everything
that I shall say has been told, all have walked through the garden of
knowledge" -
Firdausi, Book of Kings I
think we have by now had enough rest to enable us look at issues more
objectively with the hope of achieving higher goals. What indeed
prevented me from raising more points the other time, was the
disposition of brother Abdulsalami Ajetunmobi, as he reacted to some of
the points I raised. He asserted my ignorance in an earlier mail, but
when I denied that and tried to tell about who really I am, he said I
was pompous and resorting to vanity. This of course is discouraging and
portrays an aim of getting rid of one. Waziri constitutes a danger to
his kind of interpretation of Islam and therefore must be destroyed, and
not with superior arguments, no, but with outright denunciations. Mallam
Sanusi Lamido Sanusi on his part did not help matters. For when I tried
to refer him to an error he once made in attributing the writings of
AlQadi Iyadh to Khalil in defence of what he called
"ignorance" on my part when I attributed the writings of Ali
Shari’ati to Ayotollahi Mutahari, he protested and asserted that he
still stands by that. One wonders why all these? In this phase of the
debate I pray we will be identified with more objective sense of purpose
than in the previous, since the goal, presumably, is to bring to plane
the reality of things as they are for the benefit of the discerning
public. I
wish to identify three major strands of arguments in Muslims discourses
and try to understand the real issue behind them. These are: Modernity
as referred by brother Abdulsalami and Sanusi L. Sanusi; Islamic Banking
as mentioned by Sanusi in one of his mails and thirdly; the
classification of Muslims as Shi’ites, Sunnites, Qur’anites,
Modernists, Moderates, Traditionalists, Progressives and Conservatives.
This at least for my observation of Sanusi’s and Abdulsalami’s
disagreement with such classifications by myself, without much regard to
the fact that Mallam Sanusi uses this kind of classifications, with a
sense of righteousness in his essays, especially the terms progressives
and traditionalists. I
wish also to approach this discourse with the conviction that we are all
creationists who believe in the divine, hence the scientific evidence of
creation of humankind. It would also be good to understand that all
social theories of "modern" western educational system, in the
last two centuries were built on the presupposition that humankind were
evolved by chance, not created by God, and as such the whole concept of
development, and the so-called modernity, both among the social and
liberal democrats, is built on the assumption of a continuous refinement
of human race to a most "civilised" height in this world.
Thus, Francis Fukuyama of the Frankfurt now Chicago school at the turn
of this century would write his celebrated and yet controversial book, The
End of History and the Last Man, concluding that liberal democracy
represents the end of ideological evolution, and the people in the west
represent the peak of the "evolved" man. We the creationists
have evidence both by reason and revelation to believe the contrariness
of such claims and assert the truth that the whole issue of modernity is
a ruse in intellectualism and discourse on it is nothing surpassing an
intellectual triviality. Modernity As
brother Abdulsalami would say "practicing Islam in modern
times". Here comes the inevitable question, what is this modernity
that Islam has to adjust to? What is modern as opposed traditional, as
we frequently see in nowadays literature? Is it technology? If it is
technology, why is it that Muslims have to adjust and change their
interpretation of the Qur’an just for the simple reason that a new
machine has been invented thereby subjecting divine rules regarding
social behaviour, business and political life to the service of a newly
invented technological device? Is conscience not the most precious
possession of humankind? Or must conscience be subjected to the product
of human skills? After all we know that it is not a Burqa or a long
beard that shows how one can operate or create a new device. Technology
in the life of humankind has always been there and no human beings can
claim that their proficiency in dealing with a particular machine is due
to their religious belief, race, and colour or family background.
Neither can we also say our technological backwardness as Muslims today,
is due to our religion or interpretation of it, because different people
of different background and mindset have been on the lead in the field
of technological advancements over the centuries. In fact no scholar of
civilisation can claim a fair sense of precision in explaining the
reason why civilisations, Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman, Indian, Chinese,
Greek or Islamic crumbled. Certainly
the discussants know that technology is not what they mean by modernity
as it relates to Muslims character and disposition. No. Most of it is
what is considered a new thought in social, economic and political
theories. You hear modern psychology, modern politics, and modern
sociology, latest breakthroughs in legal theories and financial dealings
which Muslims are expected to leave what they see as the correct
interpretations of their religion in that regard and follow the other
one, or mould there ways to suit that new arrangement, they should keep
subjecting there religion to condition set by other people and must
strip Islam from its revolutionary attributes, which always seeks to
change condition to that which is less tempting for them to maintain
their faith in this temporary abode. Thus the statement, "Modernity
has come to stay and Islam must learn to adjust to it", is
attributed to Ali Mazrui. The
truth of the matter is, in the life of humankind, their behaviour,
political and social, they remain themselves right from time. They have
not changed and the fact that something called "new" is
"introduced" into their life does not mean it is truly foreign
to their character. The concept of humankind being a savage and they
keep changing for the better over time is an intellectual treason
imported into social theorems. The reality is human beings right from
time have been friends, enemies, they marry, they trade, and they are
capable of exhibiting bestialities, can be compassionate, kind, and
just. They can also be foolish, wise, godly or ungodly. They have
conscience and their quality in reasoning and system belief, emotional
attributes and dispositions has never changed. Read the preface to the
book, The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Green, Seven Habits of
Highly Effective People, by Stephen R. Covey and ultimately the Holy
Qur’an, which in its text and context always remind humankind that
their like in everything have been to this world in the past. To
buttress this point further, we take the example of the phrase
"modern banking", which suggests that there is something novel
about banking business, but in actuality it is business in usury that
has been there right from time immemorial (I will come back to this when
I take Islamic Banking). Also there is this issue of modern democracy,
the legislature, executive and the judiciary, rule of law and freedom of
_expression; government of the people, for the people and by the people;
people’s participation in governance and other things. But in reality
if you check the history of humankind you find that, these are natural
things and there was not a government in the past that did not rule with
the exclusive claim to the abovementioned insights. Even Prophet of
Islam is often quoted as saying: The most rewarding Jihaad is
telling the word of truth on the face of a tyrant. In fact the most
developed democracies like the USA within the 200 years of its existence
produced 40 or slightly more presidents, while Zazzau an independent
nation and an aristocracy once produced 60 kings within 200 years. One
would find reason to ask here as to which system gives more room for
people’s participation? Also in the USA you will find that only the
Anglo-Saxons rule, which is akin to what is obtained in aristocracies.
We even witnessed the case of a son inheriting his father’s seat,
George Bush Snr. and George Bush Jnr. What is then the
"modern" thing about this as opposed traditional? Also you
would see that Iran is always condemned as not being democratic by
having the Jurist Consult, the twelve Ulama’, who are the democratic
watchdog of the nation, whose power overrides the national assembly and
the executive. They are even compared by some writers to the old
Christians Europe where the priests are said to have monopolised
everything. One writer referred to their system as the
"dictatorship of the learned". But yet it is no longer a
secret today that the Jewish lobby is in the control of American
government and moulder of its policies, this they do outside the
physical and logical layers of the government. But yet you see people
condemning Iran’s democracy as traditional but the USA’s as modern
and developed, not to even term it to be " the dictatorship of the
rich Jewish bankers". Another
thing also is the democratic culture in social living, which, as it is
portrayed, gives freedom of choice of ways of life to individuals and
groups. Its recent scores, among other things, is its acknowledgement of
people’s right to become whatever they want including homosexuals.
This too is never new in other cultures even before democracy is known
in this form. For long, Hausa societies understand that these characters
have to exist and they can do what ever they want. We have grown up to
hear people being addressed as ‘Yan daudu, they are dandies and
behave like women. We also have Magajiyan Karuwai, which is a
title used to identify known head of prostitutes and dandies. One then,
would be inclined to ask as to what is "modern" or new in this
"freedom" that mark a phase in human development? Discourse
on modernity is only media hype and a sort of psychological intimidation
in order for some group of people to impress a certain carefully defined
perception of life. A careful study into the intellectual history of
humankind will reveal that there is no time in history when human beings
use faith alone without reason. But a dubious classification of the age
of humankind into an age of faith and age of reason is everyday being
projected. The whole body of Islamic literature and the methodology it
follows before it establishes a law or ascertain the authenticity of a
Hadith is purely logical and reasonable, even the knowledge of grammar
right from time follows a strict rule of logic and finesse. Islamic
Banking Another
issue is that of Islamic banking, "progressive" Muslims think
that since we are in an age of "modernity" which "has
come to stay" we have to bend our rules and subscribe to the notion
of banking, though in this case, an "Islamic one". Here we
must call to mind that the idea of banking in itself is usurious in
attribute and there is nothing novel about usury. Our reading of the
good satiric work, The Jew Malta will give us insight into how
the people of Europe struggled with the Jewish merchants of the then,
who sought to establish their usurious banking system. Also a reading of
the activities of the Roschilds, the Jewish rich family and how they
were able to influence policy makers to yield to their demand of banking
system is revealing. Today, though the Muslim apologist may find reason
to say that his own banking in the "modern world" would be
"interest free". This definitely he would say without
reflecting on the central nature of the banking industry across the
globe. How could his bank be relating to all those usurious banks in the
world? The idea of Islamic banking from a very practical point of view
cannot really be Islamic. It is only an attempt to make the Muslims
yield to the demands of Talmudic Judaism and compromise their
moral decency by not demanding for changes, in issues relating to
financial dealings. Attached
also to banking is the inevitable consolidation of the use of paper
money, which helps the domination of the people of the world by the
minority in the banking industry. It is certainly a deliberate attempt
by these people to chain humankind, flouting all rules regarding their
freedom and making them to capitulate to the wishes and aspirations of
the bankers. In the beginning, money are counted in gold and silver and
the mine for this is anywhere on earth, its management is left to nature
and its acquisition is left to the abilities of those who may come
across the mine. But this gold and silver is now replaced by paper
money. Each country will have its own and in complete subscription to an
international law that suggests the limit a nation will print those
moneys. Some individuals who are influential not only in the major
financial houses in the world but also in politics everywhere across the
globe own these money banks. They make and unmake leaders, and are
interested in every sphere of human endeavour. Being guided by no good
sense of morality, they can always print whatever amount they want
whenever they want something. They control everything; they deny the
entire human race the hope of seeking this bounty of God freely but
through their hands. Islamic banking cannot be a welcome idea since the
issue of paper money is not settled among the jurists. The
Muslim Umma In
supposition of my reader’s agreement with the views expressed above, I
will now go ahead to discuss the issue of classification of Muslims. No
doubt today the body of Muslim umma are classified into different groups
by their unique methods through which they read the world via the divine
scripts, the Qur’an. In our history, colonisation of Muslims lands by
the imperialists’ European nations accelerated the coming up of more
groups since the Muslim governments that can to curb people’s excesses
were no longer in place. Yes, it is desired if today all these groups
could mend their differences and see the world through one angle of the
scripture. But how true this can be when difference in perception among
individuals is as true as their physical selves? Yet, it suffices to say
that Muslims are all in consensus that the Qur’an should form their
first paradigm in thought and action. No dispute on this. But yet the
first set of Muslims after the demise of the holy prophet found
themselves facing many difficulties because they differ a lot in the way
they did interpret Qur’anic injunctions, this accompanied with the
fact that they had to continue acting, making laws within the confines
of the faith. As a result, they narrowed down their differences further,
by seeking for how the prophet correctly interpreted some verses. Later
the collection of his words and actions together formed the body of the
literature we today call Hadith. Now, in this "modern" world,
I believe the reader will agree with me that if we drop all Ahadith and
just use Qur’an directly, we will find ourselves in the same pit,
because logical but yet contradictory interpretations will everyday be
coming up and as a result we cannot act, we will only keep arguing. As
such we have to have ourselves a sort of an anchor. Let’s get to the
root and find out how the prophet did it. Allah says in the Qur’an:
"Verily you have in the messenger of Allah most excellent pattern
of conduct". There
are of course some Ahadith that are completely a fabrication, and
because of the fear of exchanging them for a precious gem, a science was
evolved that checks the authenticity of Ahadith, it checks the
personality of those who reported any particular Hadith, among other
things. In this the Shi’ites raise questions on the personalities of
even some of the Sahaba but the Sunni do not raise questions on the
personalities of the Sahaba as part of the convention. And both camps
have logical and "reasonable" reasons for doing that. But one
thing we cannot deny both the two camps is the fact that they both have
strong arguments against or for each position they take. There
are also some other Muslims that are known as the Qur’anites,
Mu’tazilites and what have you. In my opinion the Qur’anites, the
Shi’ites, Mu’tazilites, or Wahabites have the right to adopt a
particular convention that leads them to making conclusions always. In
as much as that system or convention is rounded enough to solve
practical human problems reflecting the sentiment of the Qur’an and
its teachings. In this we can see that the conventions in Shi’a and
Sunna are the only ones that transcended the level of mere
opinions/ideals to practical applications. And to them belong the credit
of the highly stimulating Islamic culture, which poses a threat to
"modernity". If
then we are to adopt and practice that of Mu’tazilites or the
Qur’aniyyun then we have to be ready to come across many ideals that
only remain "sweet" and "reasonable" ideals but
cannot achieve being practiced because they carry within them the seed
of the destruction of the system itself. Although Mallam Sanusi Lamido
Sanusi always tries picking from different schools of thoughts in order
to achieve what he may term to be "the correct" opinion. But
yet picking from different conventions makes one to easily end up
without a boundary, he becomes impracticable, he tends to be susceptible
to the invasion of the demons that push people to be selective not
objective. Because this objectivity we are saying in it is subjective
since it has to draw from different objective arguments that all make a
complete sense. For a good student of Mallam’s works with a little
background on Muslim History, Law and Philosophy, will see that his
position maintains a kind of incoherency and inconsistency. In his work The
West and the Rest, he has gone along way in his show of admiration
to the ways of the Wahabites, the Ahli Hadith but in so many other
places disagreeing with their conclusions or adopting that of the
Mu’tazilites. This is like a case of a person endorsing the ways of
empiricists but yet subscribing to the views of a poet who base his
conclusions just on emotions. Others like Abdullahi Anna’im who are
today putting forward new claims about Islam and Shari’a in the hope
of evolving a new convention, of moulding Islam to suit the demands of
"modernity" always come up with an Islam that does not reflect
the sentiments as expressed in the context and the text of the Qur’an. We
can see from all these that classification of Muslims into these groups
is something that we cannot do without. But what is the most important
is to have a worldview, a paradigm that sees the world from the
spectacle of the divine script reflecting the sentiment of the Qur’an.
The only classification that may not fit is the one that suggests a gap
between Muslims progressives and Muslims traditionalists, because
modernity as we have said above is a ruse. Therefore the progressives
cannot progress to anywhere since they are not creating a new boundary
in the humankind’s ruminative mind and living conscience. Humankind
have always have conscience and nothing in the studies of their
character ever suggested an improvement along this line. Conclusion To
the mind of a Muslim and all other people of faith and of course from
the records of the prevailing reality over time, this world is a
temporary abode for humankind. Through their deeds they will one day be
judged and a permanent abode will be merited to each and every soul.
Here, what exists in the realm of human action is in the definition of
good and evil. And the greatest gift their creator gave them is
conscience, which affords them the privilege of sifting what is right
from what is wrong. They also have instincts, which provide them with
the drive and the ability to take the ways of evil or good for
themselves within the confines of reason and revelation. These
attributes of humankind have been with them right from time immemorial.
What changes in their life is only technology, which is supposed to be a
vehicle through which humankind will seek for the realisation of the
purpose of their creation. And to every person of reason, will see that
justice can only come among humans when they use their conscience very
well not when they mould it to the service of a newly invented
technological device. As
for modernity in social theorems, we can easily conclude that it is not
true, for nothing today is new. Any attempt to re-fashion Islam to suit
a claim of modernism is a fraud, an attempt to cajole the Muslims into
subscribing to the consolidation, hence the political, social, economic
and the intellectual domination of the rest of the world by the empire
of greater Israel, which in its over one hundred years of existence
never offered mankind anything than blackmail and terror. Therefore the
Muslims must not capitulate. Those things that are forbidden no matter
the nature of their embellishment by the hurricane of
"modernity" will remain so; those things that are legitimate
will remain legitimate no matter their characterisations by the
"modernists" as ancient, savage and archaic. The 21st
century is the same as 1st century in as much as life in human beings is
the same as conscience is life. We can understand that no matter the
kind of setting or people or faith practiced, human beings will continue
to be cruel, just, kind compassionate, bestial, godly or ungodly. They
will marry, be friends and enemies. They will continue to be an
embodiment of intellect and emotions, a carriage of soul and body and a
combination of faith and reason. After all, when did the West gain
ascendancy that our apologetic Muslims would feel we have to mend to
their ways or hit the rocks? Is it not in the past 200 years? Did the
empire and the system in Spain not spend over 800 years before another
system crumbled it? Why then are we too much in a hurry that we are
ready to compromise the precious dictates of our conscience? The task of
ours intellectual Muslims today, should be a quest to a paradigm shift
that carries the potential of restricting the "beast of prey"
called humankind. Therefore, Muslims in the 21st century demand for
nothing more than these, among other things: As
Allah says " Say unto my servants to say the best when it comes to
speech" so we demand that all media houses both electronic and
print must depart from the creed in journalism that says "news
means trouble". All movie houses and music industries must adhere
to this rule and all pornographic industries must be scraped. Let
intellectualism be distanced from the dubious theory of evolution and
the real truth of creation form the bedrock of intellectual arguments. As
Allah says the essence of humankind is to serve and obey Him, so we
demand that the concept of right and liberties be revisited and be
defined within the boundaries of duties and obligations. As Allah
forbids usury so we demand that the world financial institutions be
reshuffled and reorganised. Let the relationship between men and women
be redefined. Let all fashion houses amend their definition of fashion
and give way for decent outfits to take control over all humankind. Let
the atmosphere be convivial for us to practice our faith and all human
beings will walk with less temptation and increase in guarantee to
having access to the paradise promised to us by God. It
is then we will give thanks to Allah and say to the people of the world
" Islam is here to stay and the bulk of humankind have right to
choose to adjust or not to adjust to it" I
remain most grateful, I
ask for your forgiveness and; Wala
Udwana Illa Alal Zalimin [There is no enmity except against those who transgress the limits (set by God)] |