Modernist Thinkers, Disagreement with Predecessors, and Western Bias
✍ Written by: Zahid MughalDisagreement with Predecessors: A Misleading Impression
When modern thinkers (such as Sir Syed Ahmad Khan or Javed Ghamidi) are accused of being modernists, they respond by saying that "disagreeing with predecessors is not forbidden," and they cite examples of differences among the early scholars. This gives the impression that their disagreement is of the same nature as that of the early scholars. However, in reality, this claim is based either on misunderstanding or on clever manipulation.
The Modernist and His Objective
A person is not labeled a modernist merely for disagreeing with the predecessors. Rather, it is because of their particular objective: to present an interpretation of Islam that is acceptable and practical within the modern (capitalist) framework. This modern framework stems from the movement of Modernity in the West, which rejected theism and established humanism as its foundation. This movement elevated freedom, equality, and progress as supreme values and promoted the capitalist system.
The Modernists' Endeavor and Rejection of Predecessors
From the 19th century to the present, many Muslim thinkers have tried to interpret Islam within the modern context. But the greatest obstacle in their path has been the scholarly tradition of Islamic history, which does not align with the framework of modernity. Therefore, modernists are compelled to reject the interpretations of the predecessors so that Islam can be molded into the form dictated by modernity.
The Claim of “Neutrality” by Modernists
Modernists claim that they are trying to understand the "true Islam" and that they are neutral in their approach. But this claim is merely rhetorical, because no human can ever be completely neutral. Every individual thinks and evaluates under some form of bias or position. The so-called "neutral" effort of the modernists, in effect, means abandoning the interpretations of the predecessors in order to understand Islam according to the Western framework.
The Modernists' Claim: A “Pleasant Coincidence”
Modernist thinkers say that if their interpretations align with Western values, it is merely a coincidence. But what kind of "coincidence" is this, which consistently favors Western ideologies, values, and institutions? This claim contradicts the reality that their understanding of Islam is, in fact, a necessary attempt to adopt the Western framework.
Neutrality: An Impossible Concept
It is impossible for any human being to be neutral or free of presuppositions. Every person thinks and decides under some form of bias. When modernists call for neutrality, they are actually attempting to legitimize their own biases while declaring the biases of the predecessors as invalid.
Islamic History and the Intellectual Lineage of Modernists
In their intellectual roots, modernists are not followers of Imam Ghazali or other eminent scholars of Islam. Rather, they are the ideological heirs of the Mu‘tazilah, who attempted to understand Islam through the lens of non-Islamic (Greek) philosophy. The methodology of contemporary modernists is similar to that of the Mu‘tazilah, although the context of their discussions differs.
Summary
❖ Modernists do not disagree with the predecessors purely on scholarly grounds, but to reshape Islam within the framework of modernity.
❖ Their claim of "neutrality" is contrary to reality and is an attempt to prefer one bias over another.
❖ Modernists seek to abandon the traditional Islamic interpretations in favor of adopting the modern Western framework.
❖ Their true intellectual predecessors are not the renowned Imams, but rather the Mu‘tazilah.
