Legitimizing Modernity in Islam

Abstract

The question of Islam’s compatibility with modernity has primarily been approached from one of three methodological positions: First, Islam (as variable) must adapt itself to modernity (as constant) by eliminating all beliefs and practices that are incompatible with modernity; second, “Islamic modernity” rejects all modernist principles that are inconsistent with Islamic teachings; and third, modernity and Islam are mutually compatible and reconcilable when based on a particular (re)interpretation of Islam. The author, who adheres to the third approach, thus questions whether a society can be simultaneously Islamic and adhere to modernity’s general criteria. His methodological approach consists of identifying specific categories in which to ground an intellectual reinterpretation of the Shari`ah. The five categories that he chooses are considered acceptable to jurists, and, as such, remain within the scope of Muslim jurisprudence: mandatory (wajib), recommended (mustahabb), indifferent (mubah), reprehensible (makruh), and prohibited (haram). Kassim uses these categories to frame debates over a range of issues in an attempt to find the intellectual space to accommodate modernity within Islam. His overarching argument is that the Islamic ethos can be interpreted as compatible with modernity’s fundamental features. Kassim begins by presenting modernity’s basic tenets: rationality and universalism. While universalism is a feature of both modernity and the Shari`ah, rationality is not typically ascribed to Islamic thought. Kassim attempts to redress the neglect of rationality in Islamic thought by arguing that a Muslim modus vivendi drawn from Mu`tazilite rationalism can find its place in modernity. He thus grounds his analysis in Mu`tazilism, a theology developed in the eighth century CE that was eventually adopted by the ...