Tarık Çelenk writes: Will the Muslim mind wake up?

“Say, do you not understand?” Quran translation

THE LOUD VOICE OF ISLAM THAT CANNOT BE HEARD

More than 70 years have passed since Bediuzzaman Said Nursi said, “Be hopeful. In this revolution of the future, the loudest voice will be the voice of Islam!” More than 70 years have passed since he made this statement. Of course, in these 70 years, most of the countries in the Muslim world, especially in Africa, Southeast Asia and India, most of which were colonized by the West, have gained their independence. The constitutions of most of these countries refer to Islam. There have also been important developments such as the Islamic revolution in Iran and, of course, the rise to power of politicians in Turkey whose reference point is Islam. However, the Islamic world is in the relegation zone in terms of corruption, human rights index, income distribution justice, record immigration to the West, which they criticize, and scientific studies. This is reflected in the disappointing behavior of intellectuals and artists like Captain Jacques Cousteau, Roger Garaudy and Cat Stevens, whose conversion to Islam once thrilled us.
If what is meant by the loud voice of Islam is the supremacy of the Umayyad jurisprudence-tradition dating back to the 12th century when the caliphate once again ruled in these geographies, the bitterness of the taste of this loud voice is a matter of debate. If it is an ancient and viable civilizational thesis against a world and its humanity alienated by modernity, it does not yet seem possible to talk about this thundering voice.

STUDIES ON HOW THE THUNDERING SEDAN CAN EMERGE

There are also a number of efforts that have been going on for many centuries and that may come to the agenda from time to time. I would like to remind you that I have also personally analyzed and written in these areas. I will open this article by sharing the titles of a few books that I have recently treasured: Ahmet Davutoğlu’s Alternative Paradigms and the Transformation of Civilization; Özgür Koca’s Islam, Causality, and Freedom: From the Medieval to the Modern Era; Ahmet T. Kuru’s Islam, Authoritarianism, and Underdevelopment: A Global and Historical Comparison” and Mustafa Akyol’s The Reopening of the Muslim Mind, translated from the original into Turkish.
Ahmet Davutoğlu’s approach is based on the definition of civilization, ancient existential psychology and an alternative paradigm. Özgür Koca takes the reader on a journey of Islamic philosophy through the metaphysical and physical world/cause and effect relations. Ahmet Kuru, on the other hand, attributes the end of the golden age of the Islamic world to authoritarian centralism, the disappearance of the independent bourgeoisie and the terrorization of freedom of thought. All of these studies are valuable and the subject of separate studies. In this article, we will try to understand the problem of the Islamic world’s lack of a loud voice through the commentary of Mustafa Akyol’s book The Reopening of the Muslim Mind.

THREE MAIN ISSUES IN THE PROBLEM

It is possible to categorize the main problems of the current tragic situation in the Islamic world as theology, politics and sociology. Akyol has opened important historical windows and analyzed especially theology and politics in his book. Of course, all this

The fact that we are having these discussions as Muslims who do not break away from “Faith” and “Tradition” adds meaning to these discussions. I must also say that Akyol is careful and sincere about this last point.

THE ROLE OF REASON IN THEOLOGY

When we look at the history of sects in religions around the world, we see that the first reason for the emergence of sects was political conflicts of interest. History has often witnessed that theological differences are also shaped according to the needs of the powers that be. Anglicanism and Protestantism emerging out of Catholicism, or Kharijism and Shiism emerging out of Sunnism are some evidence of this. The role of sociology is especially evident in political and theological debates in the Islamic world. Arab tribalism and authority relations have played a painful role in the interpretation of the Qur’an and hadiths.

In this context, Akyol also makes important references in his book to the findings of Muhammad Abid Jabiri, who passed away in 2010, in his Critique of Arab Thought. As is known, Jabiri pointed out that Arab tribal thought remained at the level of “discourse”, the lowest level of Averroes’ scale of reason, and emphasized that it could not move to the level of proof, and that this mindset could only interpret the world through syllogism based on what it already knew instead of analyzing it, which made critical thinking impossible, and imposed rote learning as an education system on Islamic countries, some of which were secular. Jabiri had also stated that the Islamic world currently has a “resigned mind” in a state of “intellectual suicide”.

Likewise, Akyol attributes the confusion about the content of metaphysics-physics relations caused by the “resigned mind” in today’s Islamic world to the Ashari and Ghazali doctrine of a “causeless” universe-physics. This model argues that God’s unlimited will cannot be limited by any moral values or natural laws.

However, according to the views of the Mutazilites and philosophers, God had established the necessary cause and effect rules of things from the beginning. If you follow the interpretation of the Mutazilite scholars, the theory of evolution or the understanding that there cannot be a superior race could also be rationalized. In fact, the Christian saint and doctrinaire Thomas Aquinas, who was influenced by Ibn Rushd and al-Farabi, defined it as “God gave to his creatures the honor of being able to cause effects”. God did this not because it was a flaw in his power, but because of the abundance of his mercy. Like Aquinas, the Jewish scholar Moses ibn Maimonides was a thinker who understood and appreciated Averroes. Maimonides clarified the relationship between philosophy and religion and was a strong critic of Ashari. He was a pioneer of Jewish enlightenment. We, on the other hand, burned all of Rushd’s works in Arabic. In the Seljuk Nizamiye and Ottoman madrasas, the teachings of people like Ibn Rushd and Ibn Tufayl were virtually banned. This is how the process of intellectual and conscientious suicide began.

THE BREAK WITH THE COMMON PAST OF HUMANITY

Prof. Dimitri Gutas says: “Before 1050, science in the Islamic world was considered the common property of all humanity. After 1050, a process was initiated that resulted in the construction of an alternative science belonging to the Muslims.” It must be acknowledged that the periods of Islam’s asr-ı saadet were periods of enlightenment in Andalusia, Baghdad’s Bayt al-hikma and Khorasan. In 1031, the caliphate of Andalusia was established as a small
In 1031, the Andalusian caliphate was divided into small principalities. The political pluralism that emerged from this fragmentation opened up new opportunities for philosophers. It was a period of open exchange with all civilizations in human history, including the ancient pagan past. The methodology developed in the Andalusian enlightenment for understanding revelation, reason, hadiths, metaphysics and physics was also the basis for the Renaissance, Jewish and Christian enlightenment. All of Europe followed the commentaries on Plato and Aristotle, always in Arabic, from the Muslim philosophers of Andalusia.

The influence of Asharism in the authoritarian Umayyad and Seljuk states led to the elimination of the Mutazilite and Murjie interpretations, which advocated free reason and ambiguity, from the Islamic world. This led to the end of Islam’s ability to assimilate other civilizations, which gave it its dynamism in the first place. It has brought us to today. This naturally eliminated the sense of curiosity in the Islamic ummah, conspiratorial delusions prevailed, and the spirit of inquiry lost its importance.

In his book, Akyol discusses three strategies that close Islam to the universal dimension through today’s political Islam and defines them as rejection, defense and instrumentalism. After identifying the common denominator of these three factors as Salafism, he identifies Salafism with puritanism in the West. In defining rejection, Akyol mentions the opposition of today’s political Islam to concepts such as “rationalism”, “liberalism” and “human rights advocacy”. He rightly criticizes the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb for identifying universal values, including philosophy, with jahiliyya. Defenders, on the other hand, argue that democracy and some universal values are already within Islam. The instrumentalists of political Islam, on the other hand, do not believe in such values, including democracy, but see no problem in using them. Akyol emphasizes that this unregulated utilitarianism contributes to the well-known problem of “immorality”.

Akyol’s definition of salafism and the western definition of puritanism, while similar in meaning, are completely different in their consequences. The two words are similar in the sense that they are understood from the face of the book and that the individual lives his/her religious life uncompromisingly with his/her family. However, the puritan ideology has been a leading locomotive for universities, capital accumulation and production, especially in today’s countries like the US, the UK and the Netherlands. Salafism, on the other hand, stagnated the deep Islamic civilization and was the cause of the freezing of reason and conscience.

CAN THERE BE MORALITY AND CONSCIENCE INDEPENDENT OF REASON?

Akyol sheds light on the universal problem of conscience and the other in Muslim societies today, especially through his analysis of the problem of good and evil in the theological field. Perhaps this situation also sheds light on the populism of an ethnic or closed religious identity in Muslim societies, especially in our country, in the face of the universal understanding of religion when we take a multidisciplinary approach. The determinant here is the historical Ashari doctrine of faith. In this view, there is a conception of a God whose consistency potential for the concepts of good and evil cannot be questioned or who acts as he pleases. Since good and evil lose their objective meaning, it becomes meaningless to question why there is evil in the world. In a way, this situation limits morality to Sharia and Fiqh. The Lebanese writer Amin Marouf describes this situation for Muslim people as “they act as if they no longer need morality because they have a religion”. Ibn Rushd, on the other hand, says that this will lead people to a belief in an unprincipled, tyrannical God for whom there is no reference.
Unfortunately, the understanding of Islam that confined morality to the Sharia with the Ashari interpretation also made conscience ambiguous for the ummah. “The truth is that in mainstream Islamic thought there is no concept of conscience defined as an independent source of moral competence,” Akyol states. Rumor has it that “conscience” was a piece of paradise that even the fratricide Cain turned away from paradise. In any case, it tells the truth. In the Bible, St. Jerome emphasized this in the parable of the Prophet Zulkiphil. Thinkers have questioned a social conscience beyond an individual conscience over time. Elmalılı H. Yazır warns the Islamic Ummah that if they lose their conscience, they will be doomed to collapse. Erich Fromm is pessimistic about this. Fromm warns the Islamic Ummah that if the relationship between man and authority is not established in a just manner, societies will lose their conscientious sensitivity. Akyol argues that the authority’s refusal to allow the formation of an independent intuitive morality as envisioned by Mutazila renders the formation of an independent social conscience dysfunctional.

THE UNRESIGNED INTELLECT IN METAPHYSICS-PHYSICS RELATIONS

Akyol states in his book (p. 171) that Muslim scholars shifted to esotericism or occult sciences due to Ashari’s veiling of the rational scientific worldview of philosophers. In fact, at the root of the problem here lies the inability to produce a reality-knowledge architecture or epistemology. This is because esotericism and even the science of angels were of interest to Andalusia, Bayt al-Hikma, Khorasan and Renaissance philosophers. They did not deny metaphysical intuition and spiritual providence. Only in the theory of knowledge of each of them were the models of the relationship of the two worlds secularized and systematized.

My personal opinion is that God, in accordance with His custom and morality, granted privileges to prophets and some special people through miracles, miracles or miracles that did not change the outcome. Ibn Rushd also described these as rare possibilities hidden within the cosmic structure. Furthermore, Renaissance scholars such as Bruno, Ficino, Campanella or Mirandola sought to systematize the relationship between supra-physical realities and modern science. This is because the Renaissance, the period of rebirth, included the claim of mutual adaptation of Hermetic, occultist and scientific sources from ancient Egyptian antiquity. In this sense, Renaissance philosophers were under the influence of Arabi, Kindi, Farabi and Ibn Sina.

POLITICAL AUTHORITY DEBATES

In the field of politics, the political necessity of the imamate in Islam is another debate initiated by the Mutazilites and similar rationalists. Some of them said that the best solution was not to establish a state in the first place, or to decentralize power, since the imams turned into rulers, i.e. despots. The political views of the Mutazilite scholars were of little use to the despots who wanted power in the name of God. Interestingly, Caliph al-Ma’mun’s interest in reason and philosophy made him a supporter of the Mutazilite movement. The Mutazilite doctrine of the social contract was almost reminiscent of John Locke’s theory. The Ashari Imam Ibn Hanbal, on the contrary, said that “obedience” to the sultans was permissible even if they were not honest, just and pious for the benefit of the ummah. Unfortunately, the idea of conquering with armies and taking over the world is still the utopia of some radical Muslim groups even today.

CONCLUSION

In essence, Akyol invites the Islamic world to “reason, freedom and tolerance” as in the title of his book and takes us on a questioning and analytical historical background journey.
The role of neshah, the failure to understand Maturidi, and the difference between the understanding of Mutezile and Murjie could have been further elaborated. The emphasis on the main topic and comparison with medieval European theology and Renaissance enlightenment could have enriched the book even more.

Of course, the role of historical Sufism in the Islamic world today could have been included in the evaluations. The impact of Arabi’s understanding of wahdat al-wujud (oneness of being) and Rabbani’s understanding of wahdat al-shuhut (oneness in being) on politics and universal thought could have been discussed. In the book, Akyol rightly emphasizes the loss of Islam’s ability to assimilate other civilizations. Perhaps a special mention of René Guénon or Abdülvahit Yahya, important philosophers and Sufis of the early 20th century, could have been useful. Guénon and his followers, including Seyed Hüseyin Nasr, were representatives of the Traditionalist-Traditionalist and Perrenialist-Daimist philosophies that advocated the principle of assimilating civilizations.

Akyol’s book is very in-depth and well-intentioned, a guiding work for thinking Muslims. We owe him a debt of gratitude. In short, unfortunately, as long as Muslims do not come to their senses and continue to deceive themselves, the loud voice of Islam for all humanity will unfortunately not be heard.