Islam and the West in a Transmodern World
Muslim
societies everywhere are caught in a pincer movement: they are being
squeezed, on the one hand, by forces of modernity and postmodernism,
and on the other, by an emergent traditionalism that often takes a
militant form. In the late forties and fifties, when most Muslim
countries obtained their independence, modernisation - or more
specifically development along Western patterns - was seen as a
panacea for all social and economic ills. Indeed, most Muslim
countries whole-heartedly embarked on a rapid course of
modernisation.
But
the strategies for modernisation were, on the whole, out of step
with traditional societies they were attempting to change. Thus a
rift developed between those who backed modernisation and
accompanying Westernisation and those who were concerned about
preserving traditional culture, lifestyle and outlook of Muslim
societies. In most cases, the traditionalists saw modernisation and
the associated policies of ‘development’ as an onslaught on
their history, life-style and worldview. The modernists saw
westernisation as the primary means of survival for Muslim
countries. As modernity looses ground both in the West and the
non-west, postmodernism, and its accompanied globalisation, is being
projected as the new theory of salvation.
And
traditionalists are reacting against postmodernism just as
vehemently, if not more so, as they did against modernity.
The
modernist leaders, who took over from the departing colonial powers,
maintained their hold on Muslim societies with excessive use of
force and by ruthlessly persecuting the traditional leadership and
abusing and ridiculing traditional thought and everything associated
with it. The economic and development policies they pursued often
ended in spectacular failure and accumulated national wealth in
fewer and fewer hands. Postmodernism has further marginalised
tradition and traditional cultures creating a siege mentality in
historic communities.
These
factors have contributed to the emergence, throughout the Muslim
world, of a new form of militant traditionalism. To a very large
extent, all Muslims are ‘fundamentalist’ in that they believe
the Qur’an to be the literal Word of God. But the fundamentalism
of militant traditionalism is of a special variety in that it
insists on a single interpretation of Islam which can only be
manifested in terms of an ‘Islamic state’. In this framework,
the integrated, holistic and God-centered worldview of Islam is
transformed into a totalitarian, theocratic world order and a
persuasive moral God is replaced by a coercive, political one.
The
Muslim world thus finds itself caught between an intense struggle
between the combined forces of an aggressively secular modernity and
a relativistic postmodernism pitted against an equally aggressive
traditionalism. This struggle is quite evident in countries like
Pakistan, Egypt and the Sudan. But it is also present in states
which are not currently attracting media attention: Algeria,
Bangladesh, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and even in the new Muslim
republics of Central Asia. These forces are pulling Muslim societies
in two different directions and are thus threatening them with
fragmentation. And the West must accept certain responsibility for
this state of affairs.
Modernity
sees traditional societies as backward, ‘living in the past’.
The essential principles of tradition are seen as the cause of
‘backwardness’, just as it is in their nature to be incapable of
change. Therefore the tradition of Muslim societies is a major
hurdle towards development and ‘modernisation’. The classic
texts of development all argued that tradition must be abandoned,
indeed suppressed where necessary, if ‘backward’ societies of
the Muslim World were to develop and ‘catch up with the West’.
And, in the name of development and progress, traditional cultures
have been uprooted, displaced, suppressed and annihilated.
Postmodernism simply considers tradition to be dangerous; it is
often associated with ‘essentialism’ - that is, harking back to
some puritan notion of good society that may or may not have existed
in history.
It
is important to appreciate that traditional communities do not see
tradition in this way. They do not view tradition as something fixed
in history but see it as dynamic; they reinvent and innovate
tradition constantly. Indeed, a tradition that does not change
ceases to be a tradition. But traditions change in a specific way.
They change within their own parameters, at their own speed, and
towards their chosen direction. There is good reason for this. If
traditions were to vacate the space they occupy they would cease to
be meaningful. When tradition is cherished and celebrated the entire
content of what is lauded can be changed. Such change is then
meaningful because it is integrated and enveloped by the continuing
sense of identity that tradition provides. Furthermore change can be
an evaluated process, a sifting of good, better, best as well as
under no circumstances, an adaptation that operates according to the
values the veneration of tradition has maintained intact. Thus,
non-western traditional communities do not think of tradition as
something that will take them to pre-modern times; on the contrary,
tradition will take them forward, with their identity intact, to a
transmodern future.
What
would be a transmodernism future? To appreciate what is at issue
here, it is necessary to distinguish between postmodernism and
transmodernism. Postmodernism is what comes after modernity; it is
post in terms of time; it is a natural conclusion of modernity. This
is why it is sometimes described as ‘the logic of late
capitalism’. It represents a liner trajectory that starts with
colonialism, continues with modernity and ends with post-modernity,
or postmodernism. It is not surprising than that postmodernism and
tradition are like two fuming bulls in a ring: they are inimically
antagonistic to each other.
Postmodernism
states that all big ideas that have shaped our society, like
Religion, Reason, Science, Tradition, History, Morality, Marxism, do
not stand up to philosophical scrutiny. There is no such thing as
Truth. Anything that claims to provide us with absolute truth is a
sham. It must be abandoned.
Moreover,
postmodernism suggests, there is no ultimate Reality. We see what we
want to see, what our position in time and place allows us to see,
what our cultural and historic perceptions focus on. Instead of
reality, what we have is an ocean of images; a world where all
distinction between image and material reality has been lost.
Postmodernism posits the world as a video game: seduced by the
allure of the spectacle, we have all become characters in the global
video game, zapping our way from here to there, fighting wars in
cyberspace, making love to digitised bits of information. We float
on an endless sea of images and stories that shape our perception
and our individual ‘reality’.
In
contrast, transmodernism goes beyond modernity; it transcend
modernity in that it takes us trans – i.e. through modernity into
another state of being. Thus, unlike postmodernism, transmodernism
is not a linear projection. We can best understand it with the aid
of chaos theory. In all complex systems – societies,
civilisations, eco-systems etc. – many independent variables are
interacting with each other in great many ways. Chaos theory teaches
us that complex systems have the ability to create order out of
chaos. This happens at a balancing point, called the ‘edge of
chaos’. At the edge of chaos, the system is in a kind of suspended
animation between stability and total dissolution into chaos. At
this point, almost any factor can push the system into one or other
direction. However, complex systems at the edge of chaos have the
ability to spontaneously self-organise themselves into a higher
order; in other words the system ‘evolves’ spontaneously into a
new mode of existence. Transmodernism is the transfer of modernity
from the edge of chaos into a new order of society. As such,
transmoderism and tradition are not two opposing worldviews but a
new synthesis of both. Traditional societies use their ability to
change and become transmodern while remaining the same! Both sides
of the equation are important here: change has to be made and
accommodated; but the fundamental tenets of tradition, the source of
its identity and sacredness, remain the same. So we may define a
transmodern future as a
synthesis
between life enhancing tradition - that is amenable to change and
transition - and a new form of modernity that respects the values
and lifestyles of traditional cultures. It is in this sense that
traditional communities are not pre-modern but transmodern. Given
that vast majority of the Muslim world consists of traditional
communities that see their tradition as a life-enhancing force, the
vast majority of Muslims worldwide are thus more transmodern than
pre-modern.
Most
politicians, bureaucrats and decision-makers do not appreciate this
point. The reason for this that when traditions change, the change
is often invisible to the outsiders. Therefore, observers can go on
maintaining their modern or postmodern distaste for tradition
irrespective of the counter evidence before their very eyes. The
contemporary world does provide opportunity for tradition to go on
being what tradition has always been, an adaptive force. The problem
is that no amount of adaptation, however much it strengthens
traditional societies, actually frees them from the yoke of being
marginal, misunderstood and misrepresented. It does nothing to
dethrone the concept 'Tradition' as an idee fixe of western society.
The
West has always seen Islam through the lens of modernity and
concluded that it is a negative, closed system. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Islam is a dynamic, open system with a very
large common ground with the West. But to appreciate this, Islam has
to be seen from the perspective of transmodernism and understood
with its own concepts and categories.
Consensual
politics and modalities for adjusting to change are there at the
very heart of Islam. Consider the fundamental concepts and values of
Islam which shape the goals of a Muslim society. These concepts
generate the basic values of an Islamic culture and form a parameter
within which an ideal Islamic society develops and progresses. These
concepts include such notions as tawheed (unity), khilafah
(trusteeship), ijtihad (sustained reasoning), ijma
(consensus), shura (consultation) and istislah (public
interest). Usually, the concept of Tawheed is translated as
unity of God. It becomes an all-embracing value when this unity is
asserted in the unity of humanity, unity of man and nature, and the
unity of knowledge and values. From tawheed emerges the
concept of khilafah: that persons are not independent of God
but are responsible and accountable to God for all their thoughts
and actions. The trusteeship implies that people have no exclusive
right to anything and that they are responsible for maintaining and
preserving the integrity of the abode of their terrestrial journey. Khilafa
also makes political leaders accountable not just to God but also to
other trustees – the community as a whole. Political change in
state and society is brought about by the use of ijtihad
which has been used throughout Muslim history to adjust to change,
innovate tradition and introduce progressive ideas in the community.
And the community has to be consulted on the basis of the notion of shura
and its consensus - ijma – is needed to give legitimacy to
change and innovation. At all times, change has to reflect public
interest – istislah. Given such a matrix of fundamental
concepts and values, it is difficult to perceive Islam as a closed
system or a negative, backward looking worldview.
The
brutal force with which modernity was introduced in the Muslim
world, and the savage way in which tradition was suppressed, has
meant that Muslim societies have not been able to practice these
fundamental values of Islam. The perennial desire of all Muslim
societies is to go forward to the practice of these values and take
a quantum leap from instrumental modernity to enlighten
transmodernism. Such fundamental concepts of Islam as ijtihad
(sustained reasoning), ijma (consensus) and shura
(consultation) have to be used to develop contemporary models of
governance and social change that are based on needs and aspirations
of ordinary Muslims. Theoretical and intellectual work in this area
has been going on for over two decades now and the initial efforts
provide us with reasons for optimism. And a transmodern framework
for discussion would enhance the possibility of this positive change
and usher democracy, consensual and accountable politics, and
enlightened modes of governance in the Muslim world.
In
developing a transmodern framework for discussion it is important to
think of the Muslim world beyond the straight jackets of
governments. Most Muslim countries are governed by ultra modernists
or ultra traditionalists – neither of whom have any understanding
of transmodernism. We need to go beyond decision makers and involve
ordinary people – scholars, writers, activists, academics,
journalists – in our discussions. We will discover that most
people have a critical but positive attitude towards the West; and
women will be as willing, if not more so, to participate in such
discussions and the transformations they may initiate, as men.
Particularly, if the West shifts towards transmodernism, involvement
of the public will open up massive new possibilities for positive
change and fruitful synthesis. However, this does mean that European
analysis of Islam must rise above such one-dimensional thesis as the
‘Clash of Civilisations’ or ‘the end of history’.
Transmodernism is not about conflict, or a false sense of
aggrandisement, but about symbiosis between Islam and the West. Its
aim must be to replace homogenising globalisation with what Anwar
Ibrahim has called ‘global convivencia’ – that is, a more
harmonious and enriching experience of living together.
Ziauddin
Sardar:
A cultural critic, Muslim scholar, author of many books, and editor of Futures: The Journal of Planning, Policy, and Futures Studies. His newest book is Ziauddin Sardar's A-Z of Postmodern Life (Visions Publications, Feb
2002). He is based in London.
