|
THE
CONCEPT OF HISTORY IN ISLAM
WESTERN
PHILOSOPHIES OF HISTORY AND THE
CONCEPT OF HISTORY IN THE QUR’AN
I
wonder whether it is a skepticism to see
a political purpose behind some
philosophies produced in the West during
the last few centuries. Whether they
might label me as unscientific or a
skeptic, it is not more reasonable, in
my opinion, than trying to find a
political purpose behind those
philosophies to attribute to those
people who have made gigantic advances
in science and technology such theories
as biological ‘evolution’ and that
the Western brain is apt, because of its
biological composition, for science
while the Eastern brain for romanticism
and the Negro brain for jazz and
athleticism.
Is
there any scientific proof in the work
of Darwin?
It
is true that almost all of the
nineteenth century Western philosophical
theories were based on the idea of ‘progress’
and ‘evolution’. As everyone knows,
the roots of the Darwinian theory of
evolution lie in the theory of Malthus,
an eighteenth century Anglican priest,
who was interested in the influence of
demographic factors on economics.
According to his theory, only those who
are able to produce have a right to
survive, while the others-the poor, the
sick, the disabled, who are not able to
produce-are condemned by nature to be
eliminated. Having much appreciated this
socio-economic theory of Malthus, Darwin
put forward, as a scientific theory,
that selection is an overall law
encompassing the whole of nature,
according to which only the powerful can
survive; the weak are cleared away in
the course of time. Referring to P. -P.
Grassé, a contemporary French
zoologist, Maurice Bucaille (What is
the Origin of Man, Turkish
translation, Istanbul 1984, pp. 48-50),
says that in the work of Darwin it is
impossible to find any scientific proof
although Darwin made plenty of
observations to support his theory, and
that his is more of a philosophical, not
scientific, theory. If, then, some
socio-economic worries lie in a ‘scientific’
theory, one which has shaken the circles
of science for the last two centuries
and been used as a ‘weapon’ against
religion, why should it be unfair to
seek a political purpose behind some
philosophical ones?
It
may well be asserted, albeit difficult
to affirm in a brief article, that the
Western philosophies of history,
especially those put forward in the
nineteenth century, had some political
intentions and functioned as an
ideological precept for the nineteenth
century Western imperialism. Almost all
of these philosophies suggested that
mankind were in an irreversible flow
towards good and nothing could stop this
flow. This was an assertion of
continuously forward movement or
progress. The sociology of Spencer, for
instance, is a continuation of the
theory of Darwin. According to Auguste
Comte, mankind had already passed the
stages of metaphysics and religion, and
reached the last and happiest age of
progress by entering the stage of
science. We can find the same notion of
progress in the historical philosophies
of Herder, Fichte, Hegel and Karl Marx.
Western
philosophies of history
Hegel’s
philosophy of history can be defined,
according to Abdul-Hamid Siddiqi, (Tarihin
Yorumu-’The Interpretation of
History’-Istanbul 1978, p. 51), as a
composition of conflicts and
contradictions. As a matter of fact,
Hegel holds that each period in the
history of social civilization
represents an independent unity. This
unity, which is thoroughly of its own,
gives rise to it antithesis over time,
resulting in a thesis-antithesis
conflict. After a while, the sides agree
on a ‘synthesis’, which finally ends
in a new conflict of thesis and
antithesis. As a result of this
conflict, a new thesis is brought about
which encompasses both its thesis and
antithesis. This tripartite system
causes ‘thoughts’ to progress, until
it attains to the ‘Geist’.
The
‘Geist’ is, in the philosophy of
Hegel, who appeared to be under the
influence of the Indian philosophies, a
spirit-the universal spirit-which
manifests itself through concrete
events. Each event, together with the
philosophy attached to it, is a stage in
the evolutionary course of this spirit,
and because of this, no philosophy is
not to be criticized as being wrong.
Every event is planned by an absolute,
determining will, and all of the
desires, inclinations, efforts and
conflicts are the means which the Geist
employs in self-realization. Everything
in the world, therefore, happens
irrespectively or independently of man’s
free will and man is nothing more than a
plaything of an all-powerful will. That
being so, only those who can perceive
the demands of this will or, more
clearly, the course of events, and act
accordingly are the heroes of their time
to be absolutely obeyed.
His
theory mostly based on the atheism of
Feurbach, the evolutionist theory of
Darwin and the dialectics of Hegel, Karl
Marx, in his own words, stood the
Hegelian man who stands on his head,
upright on his feet. (To this, an
Egyptian Muslim thinker responds: ‘Is
man really a being who ‘walks’ on
his head’?) According to Marx-in all
his views whether philosophical or
historical, sociological or economic-man
is a being ‘walking on his feet’,
that is, whose mind is directed,
commanded by his ‘feet’.
Marx
maintains that man is an outcome of the
legal relationships between himself and
the tools of production that he must
originally have found present in nature
and then developed in the course of
history. What we call ‘human thought’
is the reflection in his mind of the
relations between himself and his
material, economic life and the tools of
production he uses. For this reason, the
only true knowledge is, according to
Marx, that which will come out in human
mind when the legal relationships
between man and the tools of production
are established in a communist system
according to the principles of
communism. We can rightfully conclude
from this argument that all the Marxist
theories are substantially false because
Marx himself conceived them all in a
capitalistic system. Again, to Marx, all
the human life or history on the earth
consists of the conflicts between
individuals, classes and peoples for
economic reasons. This conflict, which
is inevitable, after passing through the
primitive feudal and capitalistic
stages, is certain to result in
communism. For this reason, all these
stages are not to be criticized.
As
to historicism (Karl R. Popper, The
Poverty of Historicism, London
1976), which was once quite widespread,
because sociological laws vary according
to time and place, we cannot find a
long, stable period in human history by
which we can come to long term general
rules. History never repeats itself at
the same level. We cannot make true
predictions about ‘tomorrow’ since
the relationships between events are
very complex. This is truly so, but, in
historicism, activity has a great
importance, although what we conceive of
is impossible to realize unless they are
in conformity with the main course of
history. This main course, however,
depends on certain blind and
irresistible laws. So, only when man
acts in accordance with these
independent laws and the urgent,
inevitable changes they impose, has he
acted reasonably. What falls to man,
then, is to give a hand to the changes
or attempts that he is expected to
accept because it is completely
unreasonable to desire to give a better
shape to the world.
The
critics of Western philosophies of
history
To
sum up, we can list the outlines of the
philosophies of history summarized
above, as follows:
-
Mankind
are in a continuous progress towards
the final happy end.
-
This
progress depends on the fatalistic,
irresistible laws of history which
are completely independent of man,
so a man must, in any case, obey
these laws, otherwise he is certain
to be eliminated.
-
All
the stages, primitive, feudal or
capitalistic, through which mankind
inevitably pass in the course of
time to the final happy end should
not be criticized, because mankind
have nothing to do other than pass
through them.
-
What
is implied concerning the political
conditions of time by all such
philosophies of history may be this:
The present socio-economic and even
the political conditions of the
world are inevitable, because they
were dictated by nature, which
decrees that only the able and the
powerful can survive. If the laws of
history dictated by nature are in
favor of the West, the communities
that choose to survive must concede
to the dominion of the West.
Is
it at all possible to approve this while
we clearly see that any age contains ‘ages’-while
some people are living in the age of
electronics in some parts of the world,
some others are suffering the conditions
of the middle, or even primitive, ages,
which is equally true also for
individuals-and history, rather than
moving forward along a straight line,
advances by cycles, and that man is the
being who, much more than a play-thing
of some laws of only nominal, not
external, existence, makes history by
enjoying free choice. Also, it is not
morally, even scientifically and
historically, possible to approve the
injustices, no matter when and under
what circumstances they are committed.
Further, we have a right to ask those
who side with such philosophies of
history whether they can concede to the
spread of Islam at the expense of
Christianity, and why they would prefer
to try their hardest and resort to every
kind of means to maintain their
dominion, rather than leave everything
to the fatalistic laws of history?
Like
every other incoherent and false
philosophy, the above mentioned
philosophies of history did not last
long. When the twentieth century came
in, the atomic physics had already
dethroned the mechanical physics, which
resulted in the obsolescence of the
gross materialistic and positivistic
world-views together with the
evolutionist conceptions of history,
like money which is no longer in
circulation. The place of such
conceptions were taken by the
philosophies of history which were
anxious about the future of the West and
did not put absolute confidence in
science and technology.
Of
these, according to Danilevsky’s
philosophy of history a civilization is
not transformed into another, and no
civilization can be saved from dying. A
civilization is the further step of a
culture and each culture develops one or
more than one of the values of humanity.
The present Western civilization is
based on science. No civilization can
claim superiority over the others in all
respects. A people that has reached the
stage of civilization is doomed to
collapse after a long period of decline;
because of this, the Western
civilization will one day become a thing
of the past.
There
are many cultures according to Oswald
Spengler, a German sociologist whose
work The Decline of the West shook the
West in the early years of this century.
Each great culture is unique and none of
them can, as with Danilevsky, claim
superiority over the others. A
civilization manifests itself in big
cities as the inevitable result of
culture. Over time, the desire for
living dies away and women no longer
bear children. Faith is replaced by
scientific irreligion or dull
metaphysics. Any civilization that has
entered upon this stage either gives
birth to materialism, love of money,
passion for power, sex and class
conflict as its fruits, or results in
imperialism, and finally collapses.
Spengler holds that the present Western
civilization, with all its big cities,
railways and skyscrapers, will in a near
future, turn into an ethnographical
museum.
The
ideas of Arnold Toynbee can be traced in
Ibn Khaldun, a 15th-century Arab-Muslim
scholar often called ‘Father of
Historiography’ and whose Muqaddima
(Introduction) is very famous. A
civilization is, Toynbee maintains, the
work of a creative minority in a
propitious clime, and it falls into
decay as the founding minority lose
their energy and become unable to find
solutions to new problems. According to
Ibn Khaldun, who influenced, to some
extent, almost all the philosophers of
history in the twentieth century, a
civilization-he calls it ‘Umran-is
based on tribal solidarity which is the
distinguishing mark of nomadic life.
Nomads lead a very simple life and do
not know anything of luxury.
Ibn
Khaldun also holds that human beings
feel an intrinsic need to live together,
but, since some people are of an
aggressive disposition, co-existence
calls for some sanctions. These
sanctions are either put by a powerful
individual or tribal solidarity
determines them naturally. Thus, the
need for a common authority results in
the establishment of the state.
Social
solidarity is, Ibn Khaldun maintains,
much stronger in nomadic tribes. If
united with religion, it becomes an
irresistible power. Nevertheless, as the
state is established more firmly, the
social solidarity is no longer needed
and, due to the established (settled)
living, people indulge in luxury. Luxury
dissolves the solidarity and the ruler,
in order to strengthen his authority,
forms a council and a troop of royal
guards. But nothing keeps the state or
civilization from collapse: increasing
extravagance, luxury and indulgences of
every kind, and heavy taxes bring about
the ruin of the civilization.
The
Qur’anic concept of history
What
distinguishes the Qur’anic concept of
history from other philosophies is that,
first of all, while philosophers of
history or sociologists build their
conceptions on the interpretation of
past events and present situations, the
Qur’an deals with the matter from the
perspective of unchanging principles.
Second, contrary to the fatalism of all
other philosophies, including even Ibn
Khaldun’s, the Qur’an lays great
emphasis on the free choice and moral
conduct of the individual. Although
Divine Will, emphasized by the Qur’an,
could be regarded as, in some respects,
the counterpart of the ‘Geist’ in
the Hegelian philosophy and of absolute,
irresistible laws of history in other
philosophies, the Qur’an never denies
human free will. God, according to the
Qur’an, tests man in this life so that
man himself should sow the ‘field’
of the world to harvest in the next
life, which is eternal. For this reason,
the stream of events-successes and
failures, victories and defeats,
prosperity and decay-all are the
occasions which God causes to follow one
another for mankind, to the end that the
good may be distinguished from the evil.
Testing must evidently require that the
one who is tested should possess
free-will to choose between what is
lawful and unlawful or what is good and
bad. Thus, according to the Qur’an,
what makes history is not a compelling
Divine Will, rather it is man’s own
choice, the operation of which God
Almighty has made a simple condition for
the coming into effect of His universal
Will. If this point is understood well
enough, then it will be easy to see how
groundless are the Western philosophies
of history especially with respect to
their conception of ‘inevitable end’.
A
possible question
If
civilizations are not, essentially,
subject to an inevitable end, why, then,
were none of the past civilizations able
to resist decadence and the ‘corrosive
power of time’?
Answer
The
core of the matter lies in the answer to
this important question. What, indeed,
caused the philosophers of history such
as Ibn Khaldun, Toynbee, Spengler and
the like to form a wrong conception of
history is that they, rather than trying
to discover the real dynamics of
historical movements, attempted to
explain the apparent causes of the
establishment, flourishing, and decay of
civilizations. Whoever looks back to the
past couldn’t help arriving at the
same conclusions. But that no community
has so far been able to remain at the
peak it climbed does not mean that this
is an inevitable end, a determinist grip
on the fate of nations. The past
civilizations collapsed because they did
not heed the warnings of what had
happened to peoples preceding them. To
accept a historical determinism means to
nullify human free will and to regard as
useless, even as absurdity, all the
warnings and advice given to living
people by both Divine Scriptures and
social sciences.
As
stated before, man is tested in the
world. He has a carnal self which is the
source of all desires and animal
appetites. In addition, man has a
natural inclination towards living
together with his fellow human beings,
and also he is in a complex relationship
with his natural environment. This
requires that man’s carnal desires
should be limited and his relations with
both his human and natural environment
be based on ‘justice’ so that he may
be at peace with himself, his
environment and nature. Nevertheless, as
history witnesses, some people may,
under the instigation of their carnal
desires, not be pleased with their share
in the society and attempt to dominate
others. If such people realize their
ambitions, they may, in order to justify
their actions, make a constitution to
govern the people. It is, indeed, easy
to have the people to ‘vote’ for
their constitution.
This
is what has always been where and when
the Divine laws are abrogated. Where the
people sincerely believe in one God as
the Lord, Sovereign and Master of
humankind, without concession to any
intermediate role of some classes such
as the clergy in Christianity, and where
they are really conscious of the meaning
of Divine Unity, which, by delivering
man from the humiliating slavery to
carnal desires, worldly positions, or to
other beings, and eradication of the
false and artificial contradictions of
the black and the white, clergy and
laity, the ruler and the ruled, the
employer and employed etc., elevates him
so high as to be the servant of only One
God, no one attempts to dominate others
through the force of money, color, race
or weapons.
According
to the Qur’an, all men are, on account
of being the creatures of one God,
essentially equal in the sight of God.
Furthermore, man lacks knowledge and
power to establish the rules according
to which at least the majority of people
could live at peace with themselves,
with each other and with the natural
environment. Above all, man has to be at
peace with his Creator and Sustainer.
Because of these, only God’s
exclusively is sovereignty both in the
heavens and on the earth.
What
God asks of man-it is what we can
conclude we must do through the exercise
of our reasoning-is that man should
build his worldly existence on three
foundations: justice, religious-moral
values and Divine laws of life and
nature.
The
Qur’an invites man, first of all, to
believe in and worship One God, by which
he may lead a balanced life: He may
attain true inward happiness and peace
and co-exist with his fellow human
beings in accordance with the rules of
justice, without being led astray by his
carnal, evil-commanding self. Second,
the Qur’an lays down some moral, also
legal, principles. For example, it says:
Give
to the kindred his due and the
poor and to the wayfarer. But
spend not wastefully in the manner
of a spendthrift. Kill not your
children for fear of poverty. We
provide for them and for you. Come
not near to unlawful sexual
intercourse. Do not kill anyone
which God has forbidden, except
for just cause. Come not near the
orphan’s property except to
improve it. And fulfil covenants.
Give full measure when you measure
and weigh with balance that is
right .
(al-Isra’, 17.26, 31-5)
Also,
the Qur’an prohibits usury,
black-marketeering, hoarding, theft,
gambling, and cheating etc. Besides, it
is also a Qur’anic injunction to study
nature, discover its laws and make
progress in sciences. Moreover, there
are some other vital principles,
obedience to, or neglect of, which has a
definite part in man’s ‘fate’. For
example, patience and forbearance
usually bring success and victory, and
while working produces wealth, inertia
and laziness are the causes of poverty.
Thus,
man, according to the Qur’an, by
neglecting or living in accordance with
justice, religious-moral values and
Divine laws of nature, determines his
own future. There is in principle
nothing, other than his free choice, to
dictate his fate. If, then, a community,
at least by majority, obey God and
perform both His ‘religious’ and ‘natural’
laws, there can be nothing to prevent
them from realizing peace, happiness and
harmony in both individual and social
life. Otherwise, no matter how
glittering a community may appear, it is
inevitable for it to fall into decay.
There
is another point to be emphasized
concerning the Qur’anic concept of
history. The Qur’an does not accept
‘inevitable end’ for civilizations.
Any civilization, as long as it follows
its ‘right’ way, it can remain at
the peak, although no civilization has
so far been able to. And, any
civilization which is due and, on the
threshold of, collapse because it has
deviated from its course, could be saved
from destruction and even realize a new
rise if it reforms its way. Finally,
history does not follow a straight and
always forward course, rather, it
advances by cycles.
|
|
