THE
FUNCTION OF MUSLIM PHILOSOPHY
Abdul
KHALIQ
Traditional
Muslim philosophy, we know, had its inception in an atmosphere thoroughly
charged with Greek ideas. These ideas were then being officially introduced
into the Muslim culture through translations, commentaries, and so on, with
such bewildering rapidity and at such large scale that no one could fail to be
influenced by them. The Muslim philosophers -- Farabi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd among
them -- were awed by this Greek worldview and they tried, in general, to
reconcile with it the principles and doctrines of Islam. They had in view the
rational mode of knowledge duly recommended, or rather enjoined, by the
Qur'an:1 so, they thought, if the Greeks had used logic and argumentation for
the solution of various problems there was nothing un-Islamic either about this
method or about what this method logically discovered. On the other hand,
Ghazali, Ibn Taimiyya and a few others revolted against various aspects of
Greek philosophy and, in some sense, also built up a reasoned position
regarding their own points of view. In both these cases the overwhelming
socio-cultural context was one and the same, whether the Muslim philosophers
were positively or negatively oriented towards it.
Relevant
to modern times, and specifically in the Indo-Pakistan environments, Sir Sayyid
Ahmad Khan's philosophy is an attempt of the same character. He observed that
just as the learned people of the earliest times of Islamic history had tried
to reconcile orthodoxy with Greek philosophy,
in
the present age we are in need of a modern ilm-ul-kalam by which we may either
refute the doctrines of modern sciences or declare them to be doubtful or show
that the articles of Islamic faith are in conformity with them. . . . Those who
are capable of the job but do not actually try their utmost to do it . . . are
sinners all of them, surely and definitely. . . . There is none at present who
is aware of modern science and philosophy and (in spite of this awareness) does
not entertain in his heart of hearts doubts about the doctrines of Islam which
are today accepted as such . . . though I am equally sure that it does not, in
the least, affect the original glory of Islam.2
Thus,
according to Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, essential principles of Islam contained in
the Qur'an are in conformity with the conclusions reached by the contemporary
natural sciences. As the physical universe is the work of God, whereas the
Qur'an is the word of God; how can there be a contradiction between the two!
Islam is Nature and Nature is Islam"3 is the title of one of his essays,
and in fact the burden of his entire philosophy of religion. Elsewhere, he
remarked that in a way God Himself holds on to naturalism: He can initially
enact any laws of nature He likes, but once they are so enacted absolutely
nothing can happen against them.4 Under the aegis of these and similar
observations, he built up a comprehensive point of view, explaining away the
so-called supernatural component in phenomena like miracles, prayers and their
acceptance by God, mystic illuminations, prophetic visions, angels, paradise,
hell, and so on. This religio-philosophical thought of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan is
relevant for our present purposes, because it prefaced a whole chain of
moorings and speculations -- particularly in the Sub-continent -- which, during
the 20th century, consciously or unconsciously sought to interpret Islam in
such a way that it stood reconciled with the current scientific fashions.
Allama Muhammad Iqbal, Khalifa Abdul Hakim, Allama Inayatullah Mashriqi, Ghulam
Gilani Barq and Ghulam Ahmad Parvez have all had ample sympathies for
naturalistic reason and for the conclusions of positive sciences.
Broadly
speaking, there is nothing unusual in recognising and giving due weight to
one's cultural environment. How can a thinker avoid inhaling his or her own
'climate of opinion',5 just as no living person can help consuming oxygen from
the air around; one environment is always seriously to be reckoned with. For
that matter, contemporary Muslim thinkers justifiably are bringing out the
veracity of religious phenomena in the face of certain recent movements in
Western philosophy, like atheistic existentialism, logical positivism, dialectical
materialism, psycho-analysis, and so on. They have learned that passive
resistance is not enough and that arguments must be countered with arguments
alone; logic must be met with logic. It was essentially this requirement, we
remember, that had compelled Ash'arite theologians of the seventh century a.d
to reason out their standpoint despite a strong opposition by Muslims who
regarded arguing in religious matters as an innovation and a heresy.6
One
essential aspect of the function of Muslim philosophy, has not been adequately
recognised. Muslim philosophers have avowedly been Muslims first and
philosophers later. To all appearances they professed the Islamic 'point of
view' with which they claimed to look at the contemporary thought-fashions in order
either to accept or reject them, but they failed sufficiently to analyse the
'point of view' itself. With only a rudimentary and vague concept of meaning of
the Qur'anic propositions, Muslim philosophers -- with very few honourable
exceptions -- generally rush to judgement as to whether a particular idea is,
or is not, in accord with the will of the Qur'an. There is seldom realisation
that, before thus reacting to the 'climate of opinion' to which he belongs he
must have a thorough understanding of his 'local weather' i.e., his attitude
which, ex-hypothesi, comprises the teachings of the Qur'an. Seyyed Hossein Nasr
very appropriately recommends that "contemporary Muslims",
should
be realist enough to understand that they must begin their journey in whatever
direction they wish to go from where they are. A famous Chinese proverb asserts
the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Now this first step
must necessarily be from where one is located. And that is as much true
culturally and spiritually as it is physically. Wherever the Islamic world
wants to go, it must begin from the reality of the Islamic tradition and from
its own real, and not imagined, situation. Those who lose sight of this fact
actually do not travel effectively at all. They just imagine that they are
journeying.7
In
other words, the meaning of the Qur'an must first be understood by all Muslims
who intend to philosophise. Clarity on the basic issues having been attained,
Muslim philosophy, worthy of its name, could then develop as a well-grounded,
well-organised school of thought and build up a metaphysics that suits its
native temperament.
Incidentally,
it may be objected that the concepts of Muslim philosophy' and Islamic
philosophy' have been confused here, and in fact are appellations of two
distinct states of affairs generally it is observed that it is properly the
characteristic function of Islamic philosophy to understand and interpret the
meaning of the Qur'an and to translate its descriptions into the language which
the contemporary man understands
No comments:
Post a Comment