Editor's note: This is part two of a two-part piece. Read part one here.
Furthermore, in the context of Islam, to a certain degree, a consequence of imposition of the pseudo-universal religious-secular binary is that we are analytically habituated to associate religion with orthodoxy, institution and rulings, and we fail to see or recognize other modes of viewing Islam, or worse, evaluate the “Islam-ness” of other modes in relation to orthodoxy. Certainly, practitioners of philosophy, spirituality, art, poetry, quantum physics, physical sciences, etc., view Islam per their respective modes and find meaning within it, but we fail to categorize or view their engagement as Islamic.
For example, we either assume or readily accept that poets like Hafiz and Rumi have nothing to do with Islam, despite their repeated references to the meaning-making texts and contexts of Islam (The “Masnavi” of Rumi has around 4,500 direct citations of the verses of the Qu’ran as well as more than 700 sayings of Prophet Muhammad!). Another example is when Bollywood’s biggest movie star Shah Rukh Khan, a Muslim, gives a viral TED talk, we have no issue in labeling him as an “Indian” movie star but hesitate to acknowledge that his worldview might have been, at least in part, been influenced by his religious context. Similarly, we celebrate the music of “Indian” artist A.R. Rahman, who has two Oscars, two Grammys and a Golden Globe to his name (remember "Jai Ho" soundtrack from "Slumdog Millionaire"?), but conveniently sidestep that he is a Muslim.
One might argue, by making statements like “Art has no religion,” that viewing these from an Islamic lens is limiting the universality of the art. Why do we view “Islamic,” “Muslim” or any religious qualifier as one that reduces universality but don’t view a qualifier like “Indian” in the same light? Surely, to read the poetry of Rumi or Hafez or for that matter to view the work of a Muslim artist with references to the vocabulary of Islam, to the extent they borrow from it, is to expand rather than contract their meaning. My point is that, to an extent, because of our insistence on universal imposition of this pseudo-universal religious-secular binary, we fail to recognize that there are millions of Muslims, all around the globe, who go beyond orthodox modes to understand, breathe and live their faith.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that orthodox mode is less and other modes are more authentic or that historic Islam is more and modern Islam, to the extent it has been adapted in terms of the pseudo-universal religious-secular binary, is less authentic Islam. Rather, my point is that each of these modes represents a particular instance of Islam. At any given point of time, there may be multiple instances of Islam, and if resulting interaction between each of these instances is Islamic, then it would also result in Islam. To give a simple example (consider it as an example only), if we define a variable w = x + y + z i.e., the sum of variables x, y, and z, where ‘w’ cannot be zero, then for a particular instance of x, y, and z, say x = 1, y=2, and z = 3, we get a particular instance of w = 6. Similarly, if we view that Islam (w) is constituted by certain texts (x), meaning-making using those texts in a specific historical context (y), and meaning-making using the same and additional texts based on current context (z), then we can see how these variables x , y, and z, will assume certain values based on the context, mode of the Muslim participant, say philosophical, spiritual experience, legal, orthodox, art and poetic, and their interactions (not necessarily a simple addition as the example suggests) result in particular instances of Islam.
Now, it may be true that some modes enjoy (or have enjoyed) greater political and/or social relevance in current (or past) times but choosing a particular instance of Islam (derived based on certain modes) and then declaring it as exclusive and universal Islam is incorrect analysis.
In the analysis above, a couple of salient points need to be clarified right away. On one end of the spectrum, one may read too much into the example, and conclude that there is the particular instance of Islam that is authentically Islamic or “pure” Islam. This is equivalent to confusing a point on a graph with the entire graph itself or confusing a street with the city itself. You see how absurd that is, right? This explains the repeated calls to go back to a “pure” Islam (or other versions of Make Islam Great Again). Fundamentally, it suggests that people making such calls consider Islam as static (instead of dynamic) and confuse it with the Ultimate and Absolute (despite several constitutive elements of Islam having a temporal dimension to them making it inherently dynamic). Furthermore, to take it to its logical conclusion, to go back to something suggests there exists a particular “golden” instance in time, and, consequently, any deviation from this “golden” instance must be resisted. Now, to go back to a “golden” instance in time also necessitates considering the underlying processes that gave rise to it in the first place as irrelevant. In other words, a particular “golden” instance is considered as self-existent (since underlying processes are rejected) and we are seeking it for its own sake. People with insight will recognize that this is not Tawheed (Oneness) — the central principle of Islam.
On other end of the spectrum, one may jump to the easy, and somewhat lazy, conclusion that there are multiple particular instances of Islam but no Islam. This is equivalent to viewing individual points on a graph as independently-existing rather than part of a larger interaction, thereby, missing the entire graph. Or alternatively, viewing the streets as they are but ignoring that their interactions result in a city. Again, you see how absurd that is, right? To consider particular instances as independently existing without any underlying unifying principle is, once again, not Tawheed (Oneness). So, how should we view Islam?
According to Islamic tradition, a common link between man and universe is they are both the locus of manifestation of Divine Names and Qualities. In other words, the interactions and processes within and outside man, are Divine play (this does not mean that man is a passive participant in this “play”). According to systems theory, a common link between man and universe is they are both considered complex systems. Living cell, human brain, human body, ecosystem, cities, earth and ultimately the entire universe are complex systems. You see it? Islam, like the human self, is at once still and moving. It continues to make Muslims and Muslims continue to make it. Its particular instances may present themselves as distinct and disconnected but it is whole — continuous, connected and contained. Islam as the religion of oneness, the religion of unity and unification, the religion of integration and comprehensiveness, the religion of continuity with the past, present and future, the religion which addresses the vastness of man and universe, the religion of temporal dialogue between the infinite and finite, is necessarily a complex system! What does that mean?
A complex adaptive system is non-linear and dynamic — it has multiple variables which, for the same input, based on a specific state or context, may respond differently. It is adaptive — it is constantly learning from its past and present experience. It is made of multiple interconnected elements but the behavior of the system may be distinct from the behavior of its component parts i.e., there may be properties of the system that are not apparent from its components in isolation but they result due to the interactions between its parts and its outside environment. Now, read the immediately above three lines by replacing “complex adaptive system” with “Islam.” Makes sense, right? So, Islam is a complex adaptive system and the properties (or interactions) of this system are Islamic.
In my opinion, this is the conceptualization shift we must make to escape the tyranny of the reductionists i.e., those who view Islam as a static and linear system with one-dimensional cause-effect and the mediocrity of ideas that come along with it. Instead, we must embrace the genius of what Islam actually is, i.e., a complex adaptive system and all the far-reaching implications that come along with it. To give an example, in order to understand the human brain, it is not sufficient to simply study the neuron in isolation, but rather we must understand it for what it actually is i.e., the human brain. There are several implications (which is a topic for future writings) of this conceptualization shift but an immediate implication is that we start seeing the role asymmetry and non-linearity play in moving a system in a particular direction. My point is that when we start analyzing the properties and behavior of complex systems instead of its isolated parts, we will be able to understand it in its entirety and make more informed decisions. After all, no man or time has ever been exempted from intellectual and spiritual effort. We are not passive players who simply carry the burden of our predecessors and surrender Islam, this complex adaptive system, to the ignorant. Instead, we are active players who need to exert intellectual and spiritual effort to align the system to its highest principles.
At the end of the day, whether you view Islam as a one-dimensional linear static system or as a complex adaptive system, it really is about developing a certain kind of heart and mind. Do you have a heart and mind which confuses the particular with the Absolute? Do you have a heart and mind which views the particular but misses the Absolute? Or do you have a heart and mind which is Islamic, i.e., witnesses the apparent multiplicity and recognizes the unity behind it?
… And Allah knows best.
Shahid has a Masters in Engineering from UCLA and works in the tech industry. He views the world with the eyes of a poet, analyzes it like an engineer, and at the core is a lover. He is skeptical of the overly optimistic belief that technology will save us from all our vices. He is instead of the opinion that technology is a means to achieving the end goal of building people with the right kind of heart, mind, and will. Through his writings he attempts to explore what it means to be a human: possess all the properties of an ocean but yet be a drop in the ocean of love. You can follow him on Facebook and Medium.