Commentary
Dr. Israr Ahmad begins his treatise by making an observation: Over the last two
hundred years or so, the intellectual and cultural products of “the West” have been
widely internalized by societies across the globe, leading to an unmistakable
homogenization. Wherever we travel on earth, we are likely to encounter very similar
ideas, assumptions, and ways of living. While human societies have been substantially
different from each other during most of history, their diversity has rapidly and
uncharacteristically diminished in recent centuries. This intellectual and cultural
homogenization has been the result of an increasing—and ongoing—assimilation of
peoples of diverse cultures and backgrounds into Western modes of thinking and acting.
Western influences are channeled through Western intellectual and cultural products;
these products can be grouped into two main types: “thought and philosophy” on the
one hand, “arts and sciences” on the other. The former denotes theories, ideas,
conceptions, terminology, and style of expression; the latter denotes natural and social
sciences, as well as what the author calls “funun.” This word usually means “arts” but
it can also be translated as “techniques.” If the author means the former, he is referring
to poetry, music, literature, painting, architecture, and so on. If he means the latter, he
is referring to what is called “technology,” as well as the processes and procedures used
for organizing and motivating human beings both individually and in groups.
In this first section, Dr. Israr Ahmad contends that the kind of “thought and
philosophy” and the kind of “arts and sciences” that have come to dominate the world
during the last two hundred years can justifiably be called “Western.” This does not
mean that every idea or every technique that is in ascendancy today was literally born
in the geographical region called “the Western hemisphere.” Instead, the author is
arguing that modern ideas and modern techniques developed in any part of the world
may be called “Western” insofar as they have been made possible by the unique style of
thinking, or point of view, which took shape in Western Europe about two centuries ago.
As used by Dr. Israr Ahmad in this treatise, the adjective “Western” has at least two
meanings: first, it refers to the societies of Western Europe and their overseas
extensions, including North America and Australia; and second, it refers to a specific
perspective, an orientation, or an attitude that is best rendered as “modern.”
Elsewhere, he uses the words “modern” and “Western” interchangeably.
In English, the nouns “modernity” and “modernism,” as well as the adjectives
“modern” and “modernist,” are often used as virtual synonyms; in some contexts,
however, these terms are sharply distinguished. Even though Dr. Israr Ahmad does not
make these distinctions in “Islamic Renaissance,” it is nevertheless important to
understand their significance. The term modernism denotes the particular mindset
that emerged in Western Europe from seventeenth-century onwards, essentially as the
result of the scientific discoveries of Galileo and Newton and the philosophy of Descartes.
On the other hand, the term modernity is most often used for those social, political, and
economic conditions that shaped, and were in turn shaped by, the modern worldview.
(See Quotes and Insights for definitions of modernism and modernity.)
In simpler language, we may say that our contemporary age has two sides: an
intellectual side called modernism, and a structural side called modernity. When Dr.
Israr Ahmad uses the words “Western” or “modern,” the context is usually a sufficient
guide for the reader to determine whether he is referring to modernism as a mindset or
to modernity as a set of objective conditions.
As we shall see throughout this treatise, Dr. Israr Ahmad’s main concern is not so much
with the objective, structural conditions of modernity as with the attitudes and
assumptions, i.e., the worldview, of modernism. He sees “Western thought and
philosophy” as being logically prior to the social, political, and economic conditions that
are associated with the phenomenon of modernity. These latter conditions include
industrialization, urbanization, capitalism, secular democracy, bureaucratization, etc.
The author of “Islamic Renaissance” seems to assume that modernity is a product of
modernism. While this is not incorrect, it is important to remember that the reverse is
also true, i.e., the objective conditions of modernity are responsible for nurturing and
sustaining the attitudes and assumptions known as modernism. In other words, there is
a dialectical relationship between modernism as an intellectual and cultural condition
on the one hand, and modernity as a set of social, political, and economic condition on
the other hand. For all practical purposes, therefore, the two sides of our contemporary
age are inseparable. This makes the distinction between modernity and modernism
somewhat irrelevant in most contexts.
Once we understand exactly what he is talking about, Dr. Israr Ahmad’s observation
can be appreciated as a relatively uncontroversial one. He is arguing that a unique
style of thinking, or a specific point of view, started to take shape at a particular point
in time and in a particular part of the world; and that, during the last two hundred
years, it has grown and become increasingly dominant all over the world. In this
context, his use of the phrases “style of thinking” and “point of view” is highly
significant. Even though he does not use this term, what he most probably means is a
worldview. Had Dr. Israr Ahmad employed the term worldview, his entire argument in
this treatise would have been much more clear and convincing. Be that as it may, a
careful and sympathetic reader of “Islamic Renaissance” can still discern that the
phrases “style of thinking” and “point of view” do not refer to any specific theory or
philosophy but to something deeper and more general than any of our beliefs, thoughts,
or ideas. They refer to the mostly subconscious matrix of our attitudes and assumptions,
otherwise known as worldview. (See Quotes and Insights for definitions of worldview.)
It is important to notice the author’s implicit suggestion that the modern “style of
thinking” or “point of view” is a unique phenomenon because it is unprecedented in
history. No other society in the history of human civilization has ever adopted this
particular set of attitudes and assumptions as its dominant worldview. To be sure,
Western Europe did not invent this unique viewpoint out of nothing; there are
traceable influences from a variety of other cultures and societies, including Islamic
ones. Nevertheless, because this style of thinking first came of age in “the West,” we
may, for the sake of convenience, refer to it as “Western” in its origin. For all practical
purposes, however, it is best to call it “modern” because of its virtual universality.
To summarize, Dr. Israr Ahmad is arguing that “modernism,” or the modern
worldview, has been taking root all over the world ever since it reached a certain level
of maturity in Western Europe roughly two hundred years ago. He acknowledges,
however, that the global dominance of this modern orientation is far from complete.
There are pockets of resistance in almost all parts of the world, a few of which are
thriving even in the midst of advanced industrialized societies. Acknowledging that
numerous groups and sub-cultures are indeed trying to hold on to their traditional
and/or non-Western ways of thinking and viewing the world, Dr. Israr Ahmad
emphasizes that this fact should not prevent us from appreciating the big picture. The
modern worldview has acquired so much influence and has become so pervasive in the
world that these minority viewpoints seem to be fighting a lost battle. Even if they
succeed in preserving themselves as such for the time being, they are likely to do so as
“alternative” viewpoints or lifestyles that have little relevance for, or impact upon, the
mainstream of human civilization. If a few members of an “exotic” species were to
survive in a zoo, that does not change the reality that it has become practically extinct.
The claim that the modern worldview has become the predominant viewpoint of
humanity does not mean that it affects every single person in the world in exactly the
same way or with exactly the same intensity. The author makes an important
distinction between the elite classes on the one hand and the vast majority of human
population on the other hand. As we shall see later, his definition of the “ruling and
leading classes” is much broader than what is normally understood by these words;
essentially, the phrase “ruling and leading classes” is synonymous with the word
“elite,” which itself has a range of meanings. Briefly, the author is referring not just to
the political elite that run a particular regime, such as politicians, elected
representatives, and diplomats, but also to the social elite, such as top bureaucrats and
technocrats; the cultural elite, such as prominent journalists, broadcasters, artists,
thinkers, scientists, and educators; and the economic elite, including successful
entrepreneurs, top business executives, and traditional aristocrats. All of these groups
of people are necessarily a small minority in any given society; yet they are the
carriers of the modern orientation.
The author argues that, in a given society, the degree of the predominance of Western
thought and culture tends to be unequally distributed; its presence or impact can be
seen most clearly among the elites of the society, i.e., among the relatively small
number of individuals who enjoy a disproportionally large share in power—regardless of
whether the power in question is primarily social, political, cultural, economic, or some
combination of these. In other words, the elites in all societies tend to be far more
modernized or Westernized than the rest of the population. It is not unusual, therefore,
to find a variety of traditional or premodern beliefs and practices thriving among the
masses at large. On the other hand, those who enjoy the most influence in determining
a given society’s overall direction and in shaping its norms and standards are the same
people who are most likely to display that style of thinking or point of view which the
author identifies as “modern” and “Western.”
Towards the end of the first section, Dr. Israr Ahmad makes one of the most important
points of the entire treatise. He suggests that modern or Western influences are not only
pervasive in today’s world, they are also frequently below the level of conscious
awareness. In other words, many in the modern world are unaware that their own
style of thinking or point of view has become thoroughly modern and Western. This
lack of self-knowledge can be observed most clearly among those social or political
movements that are seeking to overturn the dominance of Western thought and
culture in different parts of the world. While such movements—including their leaders
and rank-and-file members—fancy themselves as taking a stand against “the West” and
its hegemonic influence, they fail to notice that a large chunk of their own motivation
and methodology is based upon, or derived from, Western assumptions and attitudes.
Put differently, such movements are unable to see that they are resisting “the West”
within a conceptual and practical framework that is itself a Western product; that
everything from their methods of organizing to their strategies, from their ideological
edifices to their final aims, can be shown as either inspired by or borrowed from the
same mindset that they are opposing and hoping someday to replace.
This is perhaps the ultimate proof of the ascendancy of the modern worldview—that
even the self-proclaimed adversaries of modern thought and culture have been unable
to extricate themselves from the very orientation that they find problematic and from
which they want to liberate the rest of the world. Furthermore, since a worldview is
predominantly a set of attitudes and assumptions that operate at the subconscious
level, this last observation vindicates our own contention that “worldview” is precisely
what the author has in mind whenever he refers to “style of thinking” and “point of
view.”
Dr. Israr Ahmad begins his treatise by making an observation: Over the last two
hundred years or so, the intellectual and cultural products of “the West” have been
widely internalized by societies across the globe, leading to an unmistakable
homogenization. Wherever we travel on earth, we are likely to encounter very similar
ideas, assumptions, and ways of living. While human societies have been substantially
different from each other during most of history, their diversity has rapidly and
uncharacteristically diminished in recent centuries. This intellectual and cultural
homogenization has been the result of an increasing—and ongoing—assimilation of
peoples of diverse cultures and backgrounds into Western modes of thinking and acting.
Western influences are channeled through Western intellectual and cultural products;
these products can be grouped into two main types: “thought and philosophy” on the
one hand, “arts and sciences” on the other. The former denotes theories, ideas,
conceptions, terminology, and style of expression; the latter denotes natural and social
sciences, as well as what the author calls “funun.” This word usually means “arts” but
it can also be translated as “techniques.” If the author means the former, he is referring
to poetry, music, literature, painting, architecture, and so on. If he means the latter, he
is referring to what is called “technology,” as well as the processes and procedures used
for organizing and motivating human beings both individually and in groups.
In this first section, Dr. Israr Ahmad contends that the kind of “thought and
philosophy” and the kind of “arts and sciences” that have come to dominate the world
during the last two hundred years can justifiably be called “Western.” This does not
mean that every idea or every technique that is in ascendancy today was literally born
in the geographical region called “the Western hemisphere.” Instead, the author is
arguing that modern ideas and modern techniques developed in any part of the world
may be called “Western” insofar as they have been made possible by the unique style of
thinking, or point of view, which took shape in Western Europe about two centuries ago.
As used by Dr. Israr Ahmad in this treatise, the adjective “Western” has at least two
meanings: first, it refers to the societies of Western Europe and their overseas
extensions, including North America and Australia; and second, it refers to a specific
perspective, an orientation, or an attitude that is best rendered as “modern.”
Elsewhere, he uses the words “modern” and “Western” interchangeably.
In English, the nouns “modernity” and “modernism,” as well as the adjectives
“modern” and “modernist,” are often used as virtual synonyms; in some contexts,
however, these terms are sharply distinguished. Even though Dr. Israr Ahmad does not
make these distinctions in “Islamic Renaissance,” it is nevertheless important to
understand their significance. The term modernism denotes the particular mindset
that emerged in Western Europe from seventeenth-century onwards, essentially as the
result of the scientific discoveries of Galileo and Newton and the philosophy of Descartes.
On the other hand, the term modernity is most often used for those social, political, and
economic conditions that shaped, and were in turn shaped by, the modern worldview.
(See Quotes and Insights for definitions of modernism and modernity.)
In simpler language, we may say that our contemporary age has two sides: an
intellectual side called modernism, and a structural side called modernity. When Dr.
Israr Ahmad uses the words “Western” or “modern,” the context is usually a sufficient
guide for the reader to determine whether he is referring to modernism as a mindset or
to modernity as a set of objective conditions.
As we shall see throughout this treatise, Dr. Israr Ahmad’s main concern is not so much
with the objective, structural conditions of modernity as with the attitudes and
assumptions, i.e., the worldview, of modernism. He sees “Western thought and
philosophy” as being logically prior to the social, political, and economic conditions that
are associated with the phenomenon of modernity. These latter conditions include
industrialization, urbanization, capitalism, secular democracy, bureaucratization, etc.
The author of “Islamic Renaissance” seems to assume that modernity is a product of
modernism. While this is not incorrect, it is important to remember that the reverse is
also true, i.e., the objective conditions of modernity are responsible for nurturing and
sustaining the attitudes and assumptions known as modernism. In other words, there is
a dialectical relationship between modernism as an intellectual and cultural condition
on the one hand, and modernity as a set of social, political, and economic condition on
the other hand. For all practical purposes, therefore, the two sides of our contemporary
age are inseparable. This makes the distinction between modernity and modernism
somewhat irrelevant in most contexts.
Once we understand exactly what he is talking about, Dr. Israr Ahmad’s observation
can be appreciated as a relatively uncontroversial one. He is arguing that a unique
style of thinking, or a specific point of view, started to take shape at a particular point
in time and in a particular part of the world; and that, during the last two hundred
years, it has grown and become increasingly dominant all over the world. In this
context, his use of the phrases “style of thinking” and “point of view” is highly
significant. Even though he does not use this term, what he most probably means is a
worldview. Had Dr. Israr Ahmad employed the term worldview, his entire argument in
this treatise would have been much more clear and convincing. Be that as it may, a
careful and sympathetic reader of “Islamic Renaissance” can still discern that the
phrases “style of thinking” and “point of view” do not refer to any specific theory or
philosophy but to something deeper and more general than any of our beliefs, thoughts,
or ideas. They refer to the mostly subconscious matrix of our attitudes and assumptions,
otherwise known as worldview. (See Quotes and Insights for definitions of worldview.)
It is important to notice the author’s implicit suggestion that the modern “style of
thinking” or “point of view” is a unique phenomenon because it is unprecedented in
history. No other society in the history of human civilization has ever adopted this
particular set of attitudes and assumptions as its dominant worldview. To be sure,
Western Europe did not invent this unique viewpoint out of nothing; there are
traceable influences from a variety of other cultures and societies, including Islamic
ones. Nevertheless, because this style of thinking first came of age in “the West,” we
may, for the sake of convenience, refer to it as “Western” in its origin. For all practical
purposes, however, it is best to call it “modern” because of its virtual universality.
To summarize, Dr. Israr Ahmad is arguing that “modernism,” or the modern
worldview, has been taking root all over the world ever since it reached a certain level
of maturity in Western Europe roughly two hundred years ago. He acknowledges,
however, that the global dominance of this modern orientation is far from complete.
There are pockets of resistance in almost all parts of the world, a few of which are
thriving even in the midst of advanced industrialized societies. Acknowledging that
numerous groups and sub-cultures are indeed trying to hold on to their traditional
and/or non-Western ways of thinking and viewing the world, Dr. Israr Ahmad
emphasizes that this fact should not prevent us from appreciating the big picture. The
modern worldview has acquired so much influence and has become so pervasive in the
world that these minority viewpoints seem to be fighting a lost battle. Even if they
succeed in preserving themselves as such for the time being, they are likely to do so as
“alternative” viewpoints or lifestyles that have little relevance for, or impact upon, the
mainstream of human civilization. If a few members of an “exotic” species were to
survive in a zoo, that does not change the reality that it has become practically extinct.
The claim that the modern worldview has become the predominant viewpoint of
humanity does not mean that it affects every single person in the world in exactly the
same way or with exactly the same intensity. The author makes an important
distinction between the elite classes on the one hand and the vast majority of human
population on the other hand. As we shall see later, his definition of the “ruling and
leading classes” is much broader than what is normally understood by these words;
essentially, the phrase “ruling and leading classes” is synonymous with the word
“elite,” which itself has a range of meanings. Briefly, the author is referring not just to
the political elite that run a particular regime, such as politicians, elected
representatives, and diplomats, but also to the social elite, such as top bureaucrats and
technocrats; the cultural elite, such as prominent journalists, broadcasters, artists,
thinkers, scientists, and educators; and the economic elite, including successful
entrepreneurs, top business executives, and traditional aristocrats. All of these groups
of people are necessarily a small minority in any given society; yet they are the
carriers of the modern orientation.
The author argues that, in a given society, the degree of the predominance of Western
thought and culture tends to be unequally distributed; its presence or impact can be
seen most clearly among the elites of the society, i.e., among the relatively small
number of individuals who enjoy a disproportionally large share in power—regardless of
whether the power in question is primarily social, political, cultural, economic, or some
combination of these. In other words, the elites in all societies tend to be far more
modernized or Westernized than the rest of the population. It is not unusual, therefore,
to find a variety of traditional or premodern beliefs and practices thriving among the
masses at large. On the other hand, those who enjoy the most influence in determining
a given society’s overall direction and in shaping its norms and standards are the same
people who are most likely to display that style of thinking or point of view which the
author identifies as “modern” and “Western.”
Towards the end of the first section, Dr. Israr Ahmad makes one of the most important
points of the entire treatise. He suggests that modern or Western influences are not only
pervasive in today’s world, they are also frequently below the level of conscious
awareness. In other words, many in the modern world are unaware that their own
style of thinking or point of view has become thoroughly modern and Western. This
lack of self-knowledge can be observed most clearly among those social or political
movements that are seeking to overturn the dominance of Western thought and
culture in different parts of the world. While such movements—including their leaders
and rank-and-file members—fancy themselves as taking a stand against “the West” and
its hegemonic influence, they fail to notice that a large chunk of their own motivation
and methodology is based upon, or derived from, Western assumptions and attitudes.
Put differently, such movements are unable to see that they are resisting “the West”
within a conceptual and practical framework that is itself a Western product; that
everything from their methods of organizing to their strategies, from their ideological
edifices to their final aims, can be shown as either inspired by or borrowed from the
same mindset that they are opposing and hoping someday to replace.
This is perhaps the ultimate proof of the ascendancy of the modern worldview—that
even the self-proclaimed adversaries of modern thought and culture have been unable
to extricate themselves from the very orientation that they find problematic and from
which they want to liberate the rest of the world. Furthermore, since a worldview is
predominantly a set of attitudes and assumptions that operate at the subconscious
level, this last observation vindicates our own contention that “worldview” is precisely
what the author has in mind whenever he refers to “style of thinking” and “point of
view.”
Islamic Renaissance
The Real Task Ahead
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. The Pervasive Ascendancy of
Western Thought
2. The Fundamental Point of View
3. Political and Intellectual Onslaught
of the West on the Islamic World
4. Early Defensive Attempts and their
Outcome
5. The Development of the Social
Sciences
6. The Conception of an "Islamic
System" and the Twentieth Century
Islamic Movements
7. The Shortcoming in the Revivalist
Interpretation of Islam
8. Renewal of Faith: The Precondition of
Islamic Renaissance
9. The Real Task Ahead
10. A Blue Print for Action
Quotes and Insights
Bibliography
Introduction
1. The Pervasive Ascendancy of
Western Thought
2. The Fundamental Point of View
3. Political and Intellectual Onslaught
of the West on the Islamic World
4. Early Defensive Attempts and their
Outcome
5. The Development of the Social
Sciences
6. The Conception of an "Islamic
System" and the Twentieth Century
Islamic Movements
7. The Shortcoming in the Revivalist
Interpretation of Islam
8. Renewal of Faith: The Precondition of
Islamic Renaissance
9. The Real Task Ahead
10. A Blue Print for Action
Quotes and Insights
Bibliography
1. The Pervasive Ascendancy of Western Thought
The present age can be justifiably described as the age of the
predominance of Western thought and philosophy as well as of Western
arts and sciences. In this age, Western ideas and theories, along with
Western conceptions regarding the universe and the human being, have
come to dominate the entire globe. Ever since their origin in Europe
roughly two hundred years ago, these ideas and conceptions have been
continually growing and strengthening. Regardless of the number of
nation-states or political blocs in which the contemporary world is
divided, it is more or less the same style of thinking—or the same point
of view—that prevails all over the world. Disregarding a few superficial
and trivial differences, it is the same cultural currency that holds value
across national, ideological, and societal boundaries. While we do
sometimes encounter alternative perspectives or viewpoints, the
combined significance of these is no more than that of a peripheral trail
compared to the central highway of human civilization. In both the East
and the West, the mindset of the ruling and leading classes—those who
control the collective affairs of their respective societies—seems to have
been dyed in exactly the same hue. The pervasive ascendancy of
Western thought and culture has become so formidable that even anti-
Western movements in different parts of the world have not been able to
remain completely free of its influence. Upon closer examination, the
perspective of the social forces struggling to resist the West turns out to
be quite Western itself.
The present age can be justifiably described as the age of the
predominance of Western thought and philosophy as well as of Western
arts and sciences. In this age, Western ideas and theories, along with
Western conceptions regarding the universe and the human being, have
come to dominate the entire globe. Ever since their origin in Europe
roughly two hundred years ago, these ideas and conceptions have been
continually growing and strengthening. Regardless of the number of
nation-states or political blocs in which the contemporary world is
divided, it is more or less the same style of thinking—or the same point
of view—that prevails all over the world. Disregarding a few superficial
and trivial differences, it is the same cultural currency that holds value
across national, ideological, and societal boundaries. While we do
sometimes encounter alternative perspectives or viewpoints, the
combined significance of these is no more than that of a peripheral trail
compared to the central highway of human civilization. In both the East
and the West, the mindset of the ruling and leading classes—those who
control the collective affairs of their respective societies—seems to have
been dyed in exactly the same hue. The pervasive ascendancy of
Western thought and culture has become so formidable that even anti-
Western movements in different parts of the world have not been able to
remain completely free of its influence. Upon closer examination, the
perspective of the social forces struggling to resist the West turns out to
be quite Western itself.