THE TRADITIONAL RATIONALISM OF ASHRAF ‘ALI THANVI

Saeeda Khatoon

The impact of the West, on the one hand, and the socio-economic conditions, on the other, created a crisis for the Indian Muslim scholars from the second half of the eighteenth century onwards. This socio-intellectual crisis reached its climax after the 1857 war of independence. The Muslim scholars of the subcontinent reacted to and approached the problematic situation from two different angles, that is, the rationalistic/naturalistic and the orthodox fundamentalistic. (This has been characteristic of Islamic thought as can be easily discerned from its history.)

Sayyid Ahmad Khan is the embodiment of the first approach, who said:

“If people do not shun blind adherence, if they do not seek that Light which can be found in the Qur’an and the indisputable Hadīth and do not adjust religion and the sciences of today, Islam will become extinct in India.”[1]

As a possible solotion he again said:

“Today we are, as before, in need of a modern theology (‘ilm al-kalam), whereby we should either refute the doctrines of modern sciences, or undermine their foundations, or show that they are in conformity with Islam. If we are to propagate those sciences amongst the Muslims, about which I have just stated how much they disagree with the present-day Islam, then it is my duty to defend as much as I can the religion of Islam, rightly or wrongly, and to reveal to the people the original bright face of Islam. My conscience tells me that if I should not do so, I would stand a sinner before God.”[2]

The second approach was that of the orthodox ‘Ulamā’ who looked at the same situation from the point of view which is, if not exactly the opposite, at least very different from that of Sayyid Ahmad Khān. Ashraf ‘Alī Thānvī is a stalwart of the orthodox camp. Just as Sayyid Ahmad Khān’s approach seems to be an echo of the Mu’tazilah and the philosophers, especially Ibn Rushd,[3] Ashraf ‘Alī Thānvī champions the Ash’arite and Ghazālian cause,[4] with the assertion that:

“The nature of modern research and inventions is not universally rational and experimental, a great variety of these is probable and doubtful or illusionary, nor are most of these new or modern, but present in the works of medieval philosophers. And the Mutakallimīn (theologians) have discussed them.”[5]

However, in the introduction to his Islām our ‘Aqliyyat, he does agree to the novelty of the doubts raised by the development of modern science, the clarity of which he undertakes with the help of the traditional medieval kalām, which he considers sufficient and perfect for the purpose.[6]

According to Ashraf ‘Alī’s analysis, wisdom is of two kinds, practical and theoretical.[7] He uses the word “wisdom” in its traditional connotation, comprising all sciences including the Sharī’ah or religious sciences. It is the knowledge of the reality of the unīverse. Practical wisdom, according to this definition, is of three kinds. At personal level it is Ethics (Tahdhīb al-Akhlaq), in case of the family it is Domestic Planning (Tadbīr-i Manzil) and at the level of a city or State it is Politics os Political Economy (Siyāsat-i Madan). Theoretical wisdom, in its purely abstract form, is Metaphysics (‘Ilm Ilāhiyāt). Mathematics is partly material. Natural science is material in its full connotation.

This definition of wisdom is not only conceptually but literally very similar to that of al-Fārābī, Nasīruddīn Tūsī and other medieval thinkers and scholars.[8]

Ashraf ‘Alī excludes natural science and mathematics from religious matters on the ground that they have no role in man’s relations with God and his fellow-men. The Sharī’ah refers to physical science only as a means of explanation of the meta-physical. The proper field of the Sharī’ah includes metaphysics and all kinds of practical wisdom. The metaphysical issues, Le. Reve­lation (Wahī), Prophethood (Nubuwwah), life after death or Hereafter (Ma–ād), are termed as ‘Ilm al-’Aqā’id (the science of belief). The Sharī’ah deals with practical wisdom in the form of prayers (‘ībādāt), business and social interaction (mu’āmalāt) and conduct (akhlāq). These encompass the three kinds of prac­tical wisdom, that is Ethics, Domestic Planning and Politics.

This preliminary discussion leads to the conclusion that the Sharī’ah includes the five branches of knowledge or behaviour. Ashraf ‘Alī proposes to take up those issues about which the modern educated man has doubts in his mind In his address to the students of Aligarh University he said:

“You people should ask the ‘Ulamā’ about the doubts raised in your minds and keep on asking till the solution is reached. You should not consider your own opinions final and in case of issues which remain doubtful in spite of research, you should acknow­ledge your own drawbacks. And depend on the solutions offered by the ‘Ulamā’.”[9]

With this objective Ashraf ‘Alī illustrates seven principles (usūl-ī mahd) with the help of which he tries to dispell the doubts of the educated Muslims, created in their minds by modern philosophy and science. He applies these seven principles of kalām to problems arising under three categories: (a) creation of matter, (b) unlimited power of God, and (c) Prophethood.

He thinks that the doubts of modern Muslims [10] pertain to these issues. The seven principles are the following:

(1) Ambiguity or difficulty in understanding an issue does not prove its falsehood.

(2) If a thing is rationally possible and there is valid traditional proof (dalīt naql sahīh) about its being, it must be accepted, and if traditional proof negates its being, its non-being has to be accepted.

(3) Rational impossibility is one thing and ultra-natural or supernatural another, something being against reason is one thing while the supernatural extraordinary or against habit is another and is not anti-rational. As the nature of reason and habit is different, both should not be assimilated. The impossible never occurs, the extraordinary or supernatural can occur, as possibility is not excluded from its nature.

(4) Observation and testimony are not necessary for proving existence.

(5) Solid rational proof (dalī, ‘naql mahd) cannot be inferred from solid tradition (manqūlāt-i mahd), so such proof should not be asked for.

(6) Proving (dal īl) and citing examples (nazir) are two different things, so a claim should be supported by a proof, not an example.

(7) The relation between the rational (‘aqlī) and traditional (naql ī) can be of four kinds: (a) Certainty of both, which is impossible because conformity amongst valid narrations is not possible. (b) The probability of both : in that case the rules of grammar give more weight to the traditional. (c) The third position is that of a certain tradition and a probable rational proof: in this case the tradition will be definitely considered more authentic. (d) In case of the certainty of the rational and the probability of the traditional, the rational will be accepted and the traditional interpreted (ta’wīl.[11]

Ashraf ‘Alī argues that adherence to modern science and reliance on the rational have led some of the Muslim thinkers to two fallacies with regard to the concept of the unity of God (Tawhīd) and, as a result of these two fallacies. they hold a position which is neither scientific nor religious. These fallacies are similar in form to the fallacies committed by some of the rationalists of the past, e.g. the Mu’tazilites. They are (a) including another entity (matter as eternal along with the unique quality of God, and (b) affecting God's attributes of perfection by limiting His power of creating the world ex nihilo. In this way the advocates of modern science fall back upon the Aristotelian concept of the eternity of matter as the only possible way of explaining the origin of the world. Ashraf ‘Alī argues against the position by applying his first principle, i.e. that ambiguity and non-clarity about the concept of the existence of a thing does not prove its non-existence. He draws a parallel with other phenomena and things that are neither clear nor understood but still believed to be existing and useful, e.g. the swiftness and exactness of machines and other scientific equipment, so the quality of not being understood by all is common to eternal and created objects, but in case of the eternal there is textual (nasūs) and traditional proof, while human creations lack any such proof.[12]

In his refutation of the idea of the eternity of matter, Ashraf ‘Alī just gives a rational argument from change and movement. Regarding the concept of formless matter, he argues that movement requires the capacity of movement and the capacity can only be in the existent ; the existent has a body, that is form, so the idea about formless matter involves a contradiction. This, he thinks, is the position of modern science. In so far as the belief of ancient science in matter is concerned, he argues that existence requires the existence of species and species cannot be established without personal form, so every form of it changes into another form. All the forms are, therefore, changeable, which is a characteristic of created things, while the eternal is changeless. So matter is created and not eternal. He first assumes that eternity cannot be rationally proved ; there is probability in its favour and against it. But since the reliable testimony of a truthful reporter, that is the Prophet Muhammad himself, testifies against it, its reputation should be accepted on the basis of his sayings.

This argument proves creation ex nihilo, not as a possibility, but as a certainty on the basis of the maxim that, in case a certain tradition and probable rational proof differ, the tradition will be definitely considered true [principle (c) The second fallacy which Ashraf ‘Alī attributes to the “newly educated” is the denial of the unlimited power of God (Taira m-ī Qudrat-i Haqq). Leaving out other details about causation and natural laws, he concentrates mainly on the possibility of the supernatural to prove the authenticity of miracles. In this instance his argument is much more specific which may be because of Sayyid Ahmad Khān’s denial of miracles.[13] Ashraf ‘Alī refers to this denial as something against the very spirit of Islam. He repeats the arguments of the modernists against miracles (as Ghazālī did in the Tahāfut) citing examples such as the modernists’ argument that :

“Fire always burns and children are born of parents, no deviation has been observed. So anything against this established law is impossible.”[14]

Ashraf ‘Alī argues that all such arguments of the modernists are based on the assumption that extraordinary or supernatural (istihālah) is against Nature. To establish this assumption concrete proof is required ; merely saying that such and such has not been observed is induction, and induction, being based on the observation of parts only, leads to probable conclusions and generalisations. The probable argument will be valid only when there is no strong argument to the contrary, but even then its probability should not be mistaken for certainty. Even for the negation of probability, valid and sufficient proof is required.

Ta’wīl or interpretation, Ashraf ‘Alī argues, should not be adopted unless it becomes absolutely necessary. Ta’wīl, as is practised by modernists, would create a situation where no testimony or tradition can be valid.

Here Ashraf ‘Alī quotes from the Holy Qur’ān[15] (اللہ تبدیلا ولن تجد لسنۃ) and explains that from this verse of the Qur’ān inference is possible in two ways : firstly, that Sunnah means every sunnah, secondly, the verb in tabdīl (تبدیل) is general including God and other than God. Though there is no proof of such assertion, it is in fact probable that sunnah by way of reference to the contact means particular issues which are referred to in this verse of the Qur’an, the meaning of which is the supremacy of truth over falsehood, whether it be by burhān (reason) or lisām (grammatical or verbal). If generalised the verb of tabdīl would mean no God. That is, the laws of God cannot be superseded by any but Himself.[16]

it is interesting to note that Sayyid Abmad Khān has, twice in his Essays, quoted the same verse to prove his point of view, once with reference to Shāh Walīullah’s Hujjat Allah al-Bālighah, and at another place explaining the views of the naturalists, for supportiong his argument.[17]

Sayyid Abmad Khan and Ashraf ‘Alī derive the conclusions desirable for their points of view. Both conclude that the ways of God cannot be changed. Sayyid Ahmad Khan uses the point in support of his theory of necessary causation and impossibility of miracles and the supernatural. Ashraf ‘Alī uses it as an argument in favour of the miraculous. It becomes evident that both have interpreted (ta’wīl) and Ashraf ‘Alī’s stress on avoiding the same is superfluous.

Ashraf ‘Alī also challenges Sayyid Ahmad Khān’s principle of the “word and work of God”. He qoutes Sayyid Ahmad Khan that Nature being the habit of God is an active promise ,and textual change in the promise is not possible, without reference[18] and argues that here the first premiss is rational and the second traditional. He further expresses his views declaring the second premiss undoubtedly valid and the first incorrect. He draws parallels from the phenomena of Nature such as rainfall and thunder and their first occurrence in support of his refutation.

The third point of difference between Ashraf ‘Alī and those whom he calls the “newly educated” is Prophethood. In this respect again, he refers to Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s view without mentioning names, saying that the adherents of ijtihād explain the nature of revelation by saying that :

“Some people are by nature sympathetic and reformative towards the welfare of their community (qawm) and, due to this natural tendency, they have strong imagination. In the force of their imagination certain issues are presented by their imagination and in the same state of ecstasy voices are heard and the same can lead to seeing some figure as speaking. While the voice and the figure have no external existence, their nature being ideal. (khiyāliyah.”[19]

The rationalistic explanation of revelation by Sayyid Ahmad Khan and its refutation by Ashraf ‘Alī is not original; the medieval philosophers and Mutakallimīn have discussed this issue again and again. Zakariyā Ralf, al-Farābī, Ibn Sīuā and Ibn Rushd have all attempted at rationalising revelation. In fact Ibn Sīna’s dectrine of revelation is so much similar to the view ascribed to “modern rationalists,” by Ashraf Alī, that it clearly portrays the lack of originality of the modern Muslim rationalists and traditionalists.

In Ashraf ‘Alī’s view the rationalistic interpretation of Prophethood is theoretically against valid textual assertions which explain that revelation is a gift of God, which comes through the intermediacy of an angel, the angel at times uses īlqā’ (putting the speech in the Prophet’s mind), at other times the voice of the angel is heard, sometimes the angel appears in figurative form. The modernists’ denial of this form of revelation is in con­sistency with their denial of angels and all other supernatural entities. Again, in the same way they reject miracles as proofs of Prophethood. Ashraf ‘Alī tries to refute this position in the manner of the medieval Mutakallimīn by using two kinds of arguments, one rational and the other pragmatic. In the argument he refers to the freedom of God’s will and His Omnipo­tence, concluding with the remark that anything against “order” and “habit” cannot be construed as something against reason.

The pragmatic approach necessitated a reference (though he tried his best to avoid it) to the Prophet’s denial to produce miracles, when demanded. He, however, refers to the Prophet’s position as regards the masses who can be convinced only by the extra-ordinary and supernatural.

Ashraf ‘Alī is not in agreement with the view of the modernists about the dual function of the Sunnah of the Prophet, i.e. the real and the temporal. The contingent instructions and legal part of it are considered temporary and the moral and meta-physical as real. It would not be out of place to refer to Sayyid Ahmad Khān’s position on this issue before considering Ashraf ‘Alī’s criticism of it:

“What the Prophet said by way of religious injunctions is all revelation and obligatory for all followers. But what he said in worldly matters were only his opinions as a man. This is what I believe in.”[20]

Ashraf ‘Alī draws a parallel with the temporal rules in support of his criticism of the dual nature of the Prophet’s Sunnah, saying that even ordinary rulers interfere with our private affairs, so why should this right be denied to the rightful ruler (Prophet) ? In my opinion this argument seems to be appealing to the loyalties and faith of the believers rather than reason. Never‑ theless. the point of difference with the modernists is extended to their view of ijtihād, that is the need of adaptation of theSharī’ah pertaining to social issues (mu’āmalāt). This, however, he dismisses summarily, on the grounds that if the position of these laws is reduced to personal opinion, then they would be changeable, but since he has already denied that position there is no basis to argue upon. According to Ashraf ‘Alī, every word of the Prophet’s Sunnah is revelation and it is obligatory upon believers to follow it. Further, he observes that the validity of the law on socio-empirical grounds is questaionable only if adhered to and adopted as a whole system by all in the community. But the Sharī ‘ah is followed partly and by a few people only (at the present time) ; therefore its validity cannot be accurately judged. The few people who follow the Sharī’ah live among nonconformists, the social issues (mu’āmalāt) are neither based on the Sharī’ah—nor can its uses and abuses be attributed to the Sharī’ah.

In Ashraf ‘Alī’s view personal interpretation of religious laws is liable to change its objectivity to subjectivity; therefore it should not be allowed.

The obvious fact he maintains is that the law is not to be questioned, neither can examination or change modify or deny the law. Only the creator of the law has the power to do so. At this point his tone takes an apologetic turn inconsistent with his defence of the right of the Mujtahīdin to interpret the law. He argues that the Mujtahīdin affected the interpretation where necessary, which is a very shallow argument without any ration-ale. His loyalty to the orthodoxy may be a strength to Ashraf ‘Alī’s position as a Muslim but as a thinker and rationalist his logic and reasoning is weakened by it.

He asserts that the core of all the mistakes of the modernists is the assumption that since the Prophet’s aim is the promul­gation of Tawhīd, so where Tawhīd can be followed without guidance of the Prophet, that agency can be left out. The answer to this, Ashraf ‘Alī argues, is present in the “text,” where denial of Prophethood is equal to denial of religion and the rational argument is that denial of Prophethood is denial of God, hence it is the denial of the Quranic verses.

This last argument seems to be a statement and refutation of the view of the small and ineffective group of the Ahl-i Qur’an, who denied Sunnah and Hadith. Sayyid Ahmad Khan and his associates never categorically denied the Hadīth. Even in case of the Ahl-i Qur’ān, the denial of Prophethood seems to be an inference of the critics. What they actually denied was adherence to the Hadīth on dual grounds, of the questionable nature of oral tradition and the perfection and completeness of the Qur’ān.[21] The criticism of Ashraf ‘Alī, however, though weak in logic, is neither base-less nor superfluous. If the premisses of the Ahl-i Qur’an and even Sayyid Ahmad Khān and his asso­ciates are accepted unconditionally, its Iogical and consistent conclusions can lead to the position he attributes to them. At the most it can be asserted that Ashraf ‘Alī, like Ghazalī and other orthodox theologians, is on the defensive.

It is evident that Ashraf ‘All on the whole relies upon the traditional kalām. It is not only the principles to which he con-ceded in the introduction to Islam Aur ‘Aqliyyat that are tradi­tional and medieval, but the issues taken up, the arguments advanced and the style of reasoning, as a whole, is traditional. Though he starts with the presumption that he will explain and analyse the new doubts, he falls back on the traditional controversy about the eternity of matter and creation of the world. The doctrine of the eternity of matter, though Aristotelian in its origin, the Muslim Peripatetics adopted and reshaped it in accordance with their own requirement. In an attempt to rationalise the dogma, the Muslim rationalists at the outset faced difficulty in explaining creation ex nihilo (in accordance with the Hellenic theory of causation). In their enthusiasm to preserve God’s unity on the one hand and their firm belief in causation on the other, they adopted the Aristotelian eternity of matter combining it with the neo-Platonian theory of emanation. The orthodox refutation of this doctrine, particularly al-Ghazālī’s Tahāfut al-Falāsifah, shows that the core of the philosophers’ problems is their reliance on necessary causation; therefore Ghazālī employs all his skill to refute the theory of causation. He asserts that :

“The relation between fire and burning is not a necessary relation, for it does not belong to the realm of necessity but to that of possibility, such as may or may not happen depending on the will of God; it is only when something possible is repeated over and again that its pursuance of a uniform course in accordance with the norm in the past is indelibly impressed upon the minds.”[22]

Ashraf ‘Alī, though his argument and even the issue chosen for his disputations with the “newly educated” are evident, for reasons best known to himself, does not touch upon the theory of causation, though implicitly it is all the time the base of his argument. As far as Islām Aur ‘Aqliyyat is concerned, his argument would have been logically stronger if he had explicitly discussed the theory of necessary causation. When he asserts in the introduction that he is going to apply the principles of medieval kalām to new doubts, the assertion seems quite reasonable, but in course of the actual argument he goes too far. He does not rely on medieval principles only, but adopts the medieval arguments as a whole, which weakens his position. Citing examples and aiming to refute the views of nineteenth-century rationalists with the arguments of the tenth and eleventh centuries is an impossible task for anybody to attempt. His position would, however, have been stronger if he had, at the start, refuted the theory of causation, because its denial and refutation ‘could lend weight to his arguments. The doctrine of the eternity of matter can hardly be refuted without refuting neces­sary causation. The same would apply to denial of miracles and nature of revelation.

At the time of al-Ghazālī, Ibn Rushd and others, the disputations on these matters had their significance, but in recent time their value is at the most historical. Ashraf ‘Alī’s argument as well as his methodology seems behind time. Though his opponents are not intellectually in touch with the whole of modern philosophical development, they at least have an awareness of these developments. Ashraf ‘Alī lacks both, as far as his works are concerned. If he is not totally unaware of the theories of Descartes, Hume, Kant and others, he is not inclined to keeping these developments in his mind, at least when he is attempting to say something against modern theories. His vision and the scope of his work seem to be confined to the sub-continental scene of his time. He is trying to defend traditional views of the Muslim orthodoxy against modern attitudes, but that too in a limited way. As his weapon of defence he relies on the medieval Mutakallimīn and their principles, undermining his opponents by examining their views without proper context. The Western influence on Sayyid Ahmad Khān and his asso­ciates, though superfluous, has to be kept in mind and its nature and context understood by all those attempting to evaluate and criticise their views. Because modern Western philosophy was a part of the emotive force which led to the development of the views of the Muslim modernists and liberals. Even the situation, that is the intellectual crisis which Ashraf ‘Alī and his contemporaries had to face, could not be grasped without access and reference to modern Western thought.

As Ashraf ‘Al! conveys himself to the reader as a traditional orthodox scholar of the school of al-Ansarī or al-Maturīdī, who is refuting the Hellenistic views of the Mu’tazilites and the philosophers, by using their own essays of Aristotelian logic against them. This reliance on Aristotelian logic was one of the drawbacks of Muslim philosophers at that period of history, but in their case it can be attributed to the lack of other methods. In Ashraf ‘Alī’s case it falls too heavy on the reader’s mind, because of the modern reader’s awareness of the theories of Hume, Kant, Mill and the Logical Positivists.

Islam Aur ‘Aqliyyat is Ashraf ‘Alī’s only strictly philosophical work. In his other more popular works, the Bahishtī Zaiwar, (Hayāt al-Muslīmin, Islāh-i Rusūm, his essays and his answers to the numerous letters inquiring about the Sharī’ah laws pertain­ing to personal and social problems, the style he adopts is expedient and workable. But one expects a difference of style in Islām Aur ‘Aqliyyat, when he is addressing himself to the educated class and not the lay public. But he is portrayed even in this particular work as a teacher of Ma’qūl and Manqūl and at no place as a philosopher or theologian.

Ashraf ‘Alī’s seven axioms, put forward in the above men­tioned work, are dialectical rather than logical. Axiom seven which is the most important of all because it deals with the relative status of reason and tradition (‘aql our naql) in the author’s view, leaves room for validity or authenticity of the rational argument only in case of the tradition being uncertain. This would have been enough for practical purposes, if the ‘Ulamā’ had not taken pains to prove the certainty of probable traditions in favour of their own theories and probability of certain and clear ones. Accusing opponents and forbidding ta’wīl, they are ever ready to make concessions for their own points of view. This is what Ashraf ‘Alī does. Refuting the use of ta’wīl by the modernists, he allows it to medieval Mujtahidīn. He even goes against this rule in his own argument in defence of miracles and other supernatural entities as well as the traditional way of life. For example, he gives an elaborate interpration of the verse,ولن تجد لسنۃ اللہ تبدیلا  [23] to prove this view of miracles. In the Bawiādir al-Nawācdīr he makes full use of interpreting the allegorical verses of the Qur’ān in favour of the literal nature of the “Balance” (Mīzān), Antichrist (Dajjāl), God seating Him-self on the Throne and several other issues.

On the whole the lack of originality and the limitation of its scope ‘reduce the philosophical importance of his work. Their importance is as indicators of views of a particular approach of scholars of the subcontinent as regards the modernisation and westernisation of society. As a resistance to the new ways and the defence of the old, Ashraf ‘Alī is one of those scholars for whom the salvation and reformation of the contemporary Indian Muslim society is dependent on return to the traditional ways. Just as Sayyid Ahmad Khān is motivated by the socio-economic conditions, so is he, but as for the former the solution is to catch up with modern development, to learn and utilise modern ideas and inventions. To Ashraf ‘Alī, on the other hand, anything new seems to be unwelcome. He seems to be anxious to preserve the bygone Islamic society and its values.

One might agree with him as far as consciousness and awareness of the uncritical adaptation of reason is concerned ; he is even right in his criticism of the moderns, to some extent. Because what started as a reformative measure with Sayyid Ahmad Khān was carried out to an extreme by others, wittingly or unwittingly, which threatened to shake the very foundation of religion. So the criticism of Ashraf ‘Alī is justified in the circumstances, so is his defence, which was a part of the mission of all contemporary thinkers including Iqbal What is objection-able and undesirable in case of Ashraf ‘Alī and other conservative ‘Ulamā’ is the narrow scope of their works, their total disregard of the dynamic and progressive nature of human nature and society.

As such the merit or utility of Ashraf ‘Alī’s work lies, not in any positive contribution, but as a part of the check on unnecessary innovations and interpretations in religious matters. Philosophically, he is a typical example of traditionalism in modern India. In practice his work can serve to impart moral values to the general public. As far as the frequently mentioned “new educated” are concerned, they hardly notice these works.

NOTES