Islam, Modernity and a New Millennium: Themes from a Critical Rationalist Reading of Islam by Ali Paya (review)

Modernity or Liberal Democracy?

The premise of this collection of ten essays is that Muslims or in fact Islamic societies are in some sort of decline. They have been left behind the West in many ways, and the path forward is to accommodate modernity. It is claimed that Muslims encountered modernity by facing European powers mostly through Western colonialism or on battlefields. Such is the case for Iran that was widely agreed to have been humiliated in the two Russo-Persian wars of 1801–1813 and 1826–1828. Therefore as the result of this traumatic encounter, Muslims produced different responses to modernity. They developed and elaborated new discourses and understandings on Islam and modernity. The author believes these discourses are to be regarded as ‘projects’ (p.7) for change.

A number of scholars and academics have categorised the Muslim response to modernity in a variety of ways, but in essence, they can be grouped in three main type or responses. In facing modernity, as a Muslim, one may; accept it, reject it, or try to accommodate it with their Islamic belief and way of life. For example, Paya shows that John Esposito identifies four main groups in Muslim societies based on their approach to modernity: 1) Secularists, 2) Conservatives or traditionalists, 3) Neo-revivalists, Islamists, or Fundamentalists, 4) Neo-modernists (p. 9) (cited from Esposito, 2000).

Others have suggested categories such as: 1) The Islamist approach of the conservative Ulama, 2) The early modern approach, 3) Revivalist Islam, 4) The contemporary modernist approach (p.9).

Paya himself suggests the following categories: Followers of Orthodoxy, Traditionalists, Rejectionists (peaceful or militant), Fundamentalists, Assimilationists, Modernists, Late-Modernists/Critical rationalists/‘Reformists’, Post-Modernists and Secularists.

As mentioned above, any society’s response to a new system of ideas could be one of either acceptance, rejection, selective acceptance/rejection, developing something new parallel to the existing one. In the words of Shireen Hunter quoted by Paya the response can also be of ‘synthesis’, “favouring an interpretation of its [Islam] basic tenets in a way more suited to Muslims’ current condition and need” (p. 10).

It is however important to consider the dominance of the ‘new system’ that works based on exclusion, i.e. alienating the local population and indigenous cultures. In other words, history shows that the bearer of modernity does not accept the indigenous as equal, rather intends to dominate.

One may argue that Western modernity did not come to Muslim societies as a set of pure ideas. Rather, Muslims encountered modernity via colonialism or war. By making a distinction between modernity as a set of ideas, and modernity as an ideology behind a dominant system, Muslims have to respond differently to each aspect. While one may reject the Western supremacy, one may accept the modern ideology. On the other hand, one may accept the dominant system, but reject the idea of modernity.

One of the keys to understand Paya’s position is by focusing on his claims that Traditionalists and Fundamentalists both ‘reject the authority of reason in unveiling the truth of the Quran and the Sunnah (prophetic traditions). The important task therefore is to define the concept of ‘reason’ in a way that is compatible with Islam. It is at this point that, in Paya’s view, ‘critical rationalism’ comes to help, linking modern rationality to the Islamic concept of aql, perhaps too conveniently.

So what is ‘critical rationalism’ anyway? For Paya ‘critical rationalism is a way of life and philosophical outlook’ that was first formulated by Austrian/New Zealander philosopher Karl Popper (1902–994). The above description of critical rationalism sounds like an ideology or even a religious doctrine, all the more so when considering Popper’s words: ‘Critical rationalism is a quest for knowledge and truth, for emancipation through knowledge and spiritual freedom’ (p.15). Popper, according to Paya also claims...