Syed Ahmad Taqvi bin Syed Muhammad Muttaqi, KCSI (Knight Commander of the Order of the Star of India), commonly known as Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898), was an Islamic pragmatist, reformer, rationalist, liberal, modernist, creative philosopher, historian, jurist, legislator, statesman, social and human rights activist, and above all a public intellectual or “a renaissance polymath”, and a renowned educationist in nineteenth-century British India”. Theodore Beck, the Principal of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO College), established by Sir Syed in Aligarh on the pattern of Cambridge University, counted himself as a “humble disciple”, of its founder while his successor, Theodore Morison, claimed to have “never met another man so great as he”. Sir John Strachey, described him as, “in every respect a thoroughly enlightened man, alive to the value of European knowledge, and to the fact that unless the Mohammedans could accept the results of western civilization there was no hope for them in the future”. This piece attempts to outline briefly multiple shades of Syed Ahmed’s secular thought.
Sir Syed’s opponents had procured a fatwa from the muftis of Mecca and Madina against his project of Western education. The edict had asked the “true believers” to destroy his institution and kill its founder. It was the broadmindedness of Sir Syed to disassociate himself with the preparation of curriculum of the course on Islam at his college. Also, he wanted to avoid being accused of influencing the curriculum with his radical views on Islam. In fact, he suggested the name of his opponent to be in charge of the syllabus committee who had secured fatwa against him and his college. The College later transformed into Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The college was established primarily for Muslims, but students from all religious communities were allowed to receive education. “It aimed at the liberalization of ideas, broad humanism, a scientific world view, and a pragmatic approach to politics”, remarked Aziz Ahmad (Ahmad 1967, p. 37). Sir Syed was of the view that scientific knowledge and rational approach to life is the only way that India and Muslims can grow to heights. His vision was unique and he dedicated his life to bring it to fruition. He was a true rationalist as well, and always promoted rationalism as opposed to romantic sentimentalism which was prevalent in the Indian mindset at the time. He was an advocate of learning English and modern Western education among Indian Muslims. Mahatma Gandhi rightly remarked that “he was a Prophet of Education” (Hanif Vol. 1, 2020, p.14), and Barbara D. Metcalf regarded him as the father of the ‘Muslim Intellectual Renaissance’ (Ibid., p.15).
He advocated for the recognition of many human rights and gender justice and expressed his interpretation that the Quran does not sanction death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy, contrary to the belief of orthodox Muslims. He believed in women’s right to equality and their empowerment. He relied on the Quran to deduce his conclusion that the Prophet’s real intent was to establish monogamous marriage among Muslims. Since the Quran demands the impossible condition of showing equality in “material things as well as in affection and immaterial things” only monogamy was the real matrimonial option. (Malik 1980, pp. 263-64).
Sir Syed claimed that true religion forbids its adherents from disparaging other religions in words or deeds and one should not subject the holy figures of any religion to mockery and contempt. He highlighted the importance of inter and intra-faith dialogue, especially through his book, Commentary on the Holy Bible. His commentary was designed to bridge the gulf between the two communities and to develop a common understanding and rapprochement. An appreciation of Christianity reflects that he believed in religious pluralism, much ahead of his generation. He broke the old tradition of the cultural isolation of his community and began to build intellectual relations with the West, appearing as a moderate and liberal who represented a new Muslim attitude. Thus, he wanted the Crescent and Cross to unite and ‘shed their love over India’, and strengthen mutual knowledge and respect between the Muslims and Christians. He was against the idea of Indian Muslims participating in jihad against the British rule in India and instead advocated a dialogue among religions.
He is regarded as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity in 19th century India and the doors of his college were open to students of both religions. The schools he established taught students not only Arabic and Persian, but Sanskrit and English also. In 1882 some Muslim scholars of Amritsar offered a gold medal to a Muslim student who passed the B.A. examination in the first division, and he immediately wrote to the Principal of MAO College that he would offer a gold medal from his own pocket to the Hindu student who may pass the next B.A. examination in the first division. In fact, the first graduate of MAO College was Sri Ishwari Prasad of Tahsil Khair, district Aligarh; and the first post graduate was Amba Prasad, gesturing towards the successful secular model of education that Sir Syed had established (Bhatnagar, p. 28). Muhammad Ali Jauhar’s remark may kindly be noted: “It is strange contrast to this secularism that the famous Colleges of England, like Keble, Hartford and Magdalene did not admit non-Christian students even as late as the beginning of this century” (Bhatnagar, p. 28). Bhagwan Das, an eminent theosophist and public figure, claims that “the aim of Syed was not merely to reconcile the Muslims to the [British Indian] Government but also to reconcile them to this country and to the Hindu community” (Gandhi 1987, p. 45). Similarly, Nehru never considered him as an anti-Hindu or communal separatist; he was mainly committed to the cause of Muslim upliftment (Nehru 2010, p. 378).
Syed was not a communalist and sectarian. Historian Bipin Chandra aptly remarks that “[He] was a great believer in religious toleration. He believed that all religions had a certain underlying unity which could be called practical morality. Believing that a person’s religion was his or her private affair, he roundly condemned any sign of religious bigotry in personal relations. He was also opposed to communal friction”. Thus, he was a ‘true secularist’ and ‘believer of multi-culturalism’ well before these terms became common currency a century later.
He endorsed a ban on the traditional sacrificing of cows on the occasion of Eid (a Muslim festival offering animal sacrifices in Abrahamic traditions). To win Hindu confidence he forbade the slaughter of cows on the campus (Gandhi 1987: p. 34).
Sir Syed endeavoured to promote the reinterpretation of Muslim theology and the reconciliation of tradition with Western science, education and emphasis on rationality. “His entire intellectual energy was devoted to trying to resolve the conflict between religion and science and to reconcile the best of both for the younger generation of the Indian Muslims” (Ahmad, 1967, p. 32). He had developed a reformist ideology of Islam centred upon the creation of a new “science of theology” (Rehman 1982, p. 55). He argued that the Quran rested on an appreciation of reason and natural law, and that scientific inquiry was crucial for practicing good Islam. He was against superstitions and evil customs, and articulated the need for religious tolerance and respect of other religions. Slightest religious bigotry distressed him. He did not believe in the existence of Jinns, or in the miracles performed by prophets, including Jesus and Prophet Mohammad. He argued that the concept of a miracle contradicts the divine law of nature and disputed that Jesus was born without a father; to him Joseph was his biological father. He also denied that Moses performed miracles and that the fish had really swallowed Jonah (Baljon 1958, p.73). He also opined that Prophet Muhammed’s Miraj (ascendance to heaven) was not physical; he regarded it as a mere dream, did not accept the account of the event of Shaq Sadar (splitting open the chest) and washing of the holy heart by zam zam (holy water) happening four times in the life span of the Prophet Muhammad. He contradicted the notion that Gabriel, an angel, was a medium between God and the Prophet to deliver messages of God, i.e., the revelations. Therefore, he articulated that the miracles mentioned in the scriptures have to be interpreted as either symbolic and metaphorical or legendary; if they contradict reason and common sense they must be rejected. He believed that the only hope for Islam lay in modernizing Muslim institutions. He wanted to show that he was reclaiming the original Islam, which God and His Messenger have disclosed, instead of the one which the Ulema and the preachers have fashioned. He believed he was purifying Islam from unnecessary rituals, irrational dogmas and blind taqlid. In fact, he was demythologizing Islam. He argued that Islam’s teachings were compatible with modern science, which involves the discovery of the work of God in natural laws; in other words, Syed argued that Islam is “in full correspondence with reason” (Troll 1978, p. 257). Tara Chand rightly sums up his contribution: “Syed … had inaugurated a revolution in Muslim thought. … He wanted to provide institutional foundations for his religious ideas and, therefore, he prepared a scheme of Muslim education which would satisfy their religious, cultural and material needs” [cited in Vijapur and Abrar 2023, p. 45].
He wrote the first modernist or ‘naturalist’ commentary on the Quran. In his efforts to harmonize the laws of nature with Islam, he acquired the sobriquet of Nechari (naturist). His exegetical approach was bold and radical. He opposed the literalist understanding of Quranic expressions. He employed the speculative rationalist approach to understand Islam. Five points of this approach are: (i) The Quran, properly understood and reinterpreted by reason, would supply a guide to Islam’s accommodation to Western influence and the modern world, and reconcile the contradictions between traditional Islam and modern science. (ii) Sunnah (prophetic traditions) should be modified by weakening the hold of ‘ijma’ (consensus) and renewing the right of ijtihad (innovation /reinterpretation with the changing times) (iii) A fundamental distinction must be made between details of revelation and the general principles underlying them. (iv) Sharia must be reinterpreted for modern contexts. Traditional sharia reflects the ideas and practices of the first generation of Muslims. (v) All laws are subject to change according to circumstances; only the ‘ibadat’ (regulations governing worship and religious rituals) were perfect and immutable.
Sir Syed questioned the sunnah as the infallible source of law and criticized the methodology of the early hadith collectors, including Bukhari and Muslim, in terms similar to those put forth by the Western scholars like Goldziher and Schacht. He argued that each tradition should be accepted only after testing its rationality. He also advocated the free choice of rulings from all schools of Islamic law, instead of requiring adherence to a single school. Finally, he tried to harmonize Islamic rules with Western norms. Thus, he “practiced an engaged comparative mode of scholarship that allowed him to retrofit the classical moral lexicon of Islam for effective use in a new age. Traditional constellations of ideas and norms are rearranged and new ones identified. [He], therefore, offers us an alternative cartography of modernity that is paradigmatically Muslim”. (Hussain 2020, pp.6-7).
Through his simple and natural rationalist thoughts and actions, he brought a remarkable change in the Indian Muslims. And it is only because of his praiseworthy secular vision and hard work that he, even after more than 126 years of his death (i.e. in 2024), is remembered and valued just like he did at the time when he was alive.
References
Ahmad, Aziz, Islamic Modernism in India and Pakistan, 1957-1964 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1967)
Baljon, J. M. S., The Reforms and Religious Ideas of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, 2nd revised
edn. (Lahore: Orientalia, 1958)
Bhatnagar, Shyam Krishna, History of the M.A.O. College Aligarh (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1969), reissued by Sir Syed Academy in 2020.
Gandhi, Rajmohan, Understanding the Muslim Mind (New Delhi: Penguin Books, 1987)
Hanif, Atif, Discovering AMU, Vol. 1 (Lucknow: Xtraordinary Life Media Pvt. Ltd. ,2020)
Hussain, Khurram, Islam as Critique – Sayyid Ahmad Khan and the Challenge of Modernity (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020)
Nehru, Jawaharlal, The Discovery of India (New Delhi: Penguin, 2010)
Malik, Hafeez, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Muslim Modernism in India and Pakistan (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1980)
Rehman, Fazlur, Islam and Modernity – Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition
(Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1982)
Troll, Christian W., Sayyid Ahmad Khan: A Reinterpretation of Muslim Theology (New Delhi: Vikas, 1978).
Vijapur, Abdulrahim P. and Abrar, Rahat, 100 Years of Aligarh Muslim University (1920-
2020) (Michigan: Manak Publication, Inc. 2426 Lexington Circle, South Canton, USA, 2023)
[Abdulrahim P. Vijapur is Emeritus Professor of Political Science, University of Science and Technology, Meghalaya. Formerly he served as Professor of Political Science (1998-2020) at Aligarh Muslim University. He held Chairs or Professorial Chairs at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, Jawaharlal Nehru University, South Asian University, Jamia Millia Islamia, and Jamia Hamdard].