One Event: two Results

One Event two Results

1985 11 November 5-9 One Event: two Results (1716)

In the 13th century the Muslims were politically; culturally, academically and scientifically the most advanced people in the world. It was then that Europeans decided to become acquainted with Arabic and Muslim sciences. It was this decision which led to the European Renaissance in the 15th century. By learning and elaborating on Muslim sciences, Europe became strong enough to take over – not only Muslim countries – but the whole world.

Five hundred years after this event, the same situation confronted the Muslims. They saw Europe to be ahead of them in every field – political, cultural, academic and scientific. They were filled with enthusiasm to learn European languages, and became acquainted with western learning. But here the result was quite different. European education has made Muslims the slaves of Europeans. They have forgotten their own identity and have donned European garb.

How is it that one kind of event has produced two different outcomes? The answer to this question lies in the different approaches found in both cases. Europeans learnt Islamic sciences in order to be able to defeat Muslims with the latter’s own weapons. Muslims, on the other hand, are becoming acquainted with European knowledge in order to be able to copy Europeans and win their esteem. When there is such a difference of approach there is sure to be a difference in outcome.

For one thousand years, the Muslims enjoyed a status in the world like that of the super-powers today. While Europe Was still submerged in the Dark Ages, Arab Muslims had developed a highly advanced civilization. Aided by their own research, and translations of Greek and other books of learning, they were the leading philosophers in the world. Academically and culturally, they were in a class by themselves. The Arabic language enjoyed an unparalleled intellectual status. People used to travel from far and wide to learn Muslim sciences and arts in centres such as Baghdad, Damascus, Cordoba and Granada, in the same way as they travel to the universities of America and Europe today.

In the 12th and 13th centuries, when Muslim power was at its peak, and their empire had expanded beyond Arab countries into France, Europe waged a savage war against the Muslims. This war, popularly known as the Crusades, lasted from 1092 until the end of the 13th century. The outcome was total defeat for Europe.

But Europeans did not lose heart. Instead, they tried a new tack. In the Crusades they had discovered that the Muslims were far ahead of them in science. Imagine, for instance, how the Franks must have felt when the Egyptian army used catapults to rain fiery arrows down on their army. When these arrows were unleashed and soared towards the enemy, they appeared like serpents of fire flying in the sky. They were as horrifying to the Franks – who at that time possessed only old-fashioned hand weapons – as modern missiles would be today were they to stream down on a backward and helpless country. In fact, the Muslim world was far ahead of Europe in every department of civilization. So, after their bitter experience of the Crusades, Europeans decided that if they were to defeat the Muslims they would have to wage another kind of war: they would have to be equipped with Muslims’ skills and defeat them with their own weapons.

European clerics raised the slogan of “Spiritual Crusades”. This involved learning Muslim theology, and presenting its history and creeds in such a corrupted form that Muslims would turn against their religion and adopt Christianity. In this way an enemy that could not be defeated on the field of battle would be weakened numerically and eventually overcome. The Christian missionary movement first started at the time of the Crusades; it was indeed a crusader who founded the original missionary organization at Mount Carmel in 1154. The movement was then taken up by the Franciscan order in 1219. It is now the most powerful missionary organization in the world. Its extensive literature has succeeded in spreading false notions about Islam throughout the world.

At the same time, Europeans made a tremendous effort to learn Muslim arts and sciences. The Arabic language found a place in the syllabus of western universities. Books by Muslim scholars were translated into European languages. Students started traveling from Europe to cities in the Islamic world to receive education.

But this new war-technique meant considerable internal conflict in Europe. Reactionary elements were wary of the campaign to popularize the Arabic language. They feared that it would lead to a diffusion of Islamic thought among the people. The Franciscan monk, Roger Bacon, (1214-1294), for instance, was branded as a “Saracen” by his Oxford contemporaries when he stressed the importance of the Arabic language.

But despite this opposition, people became more and more enthusiastic about learning Muslim languages and sciences. Profiting from Muslim research, and adding to it, Europe made incredible advances, setting new standards in every field. Eventually they overcame the Muslims and became the intellectual and practical masters of the world. Modern historians are almost unanimous in agreeing that the real source of the European Renaissance was the learning that reached Europe from the Islamic world. (Western Civilization, by Edward Macneil-Brown).

Five hundred years later the historical scene changed, The Muslims, impressed by the progress of western civilization, became eager to acquire western knowledge and skills. But the motive force behind their enthusiasm was quite different from that seen in European history. According to Professor Gibb*, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898) a strong supporter of Western style education, was the founder of the first modernist organization in Islam. In 1875 he founded Aligarh College in the United Provinces, India, and devoted the rest of his life to running it. In 1920 it became a full-fledged university. One can gain an idea of his intentions in sponsoring western education from the words of his close colleague, Maulana Hali: “Come on, Hali,” he addressed himself in one poem, “let’s follow the west now.” On his return from England in December 1870, Sir Syed launched a magazine entitled, “Tahzeeb-ul-Akhlaq”. At the beginning of the first issue, he wrote the following lines:

* A renowned Orientalist and Islamic historian.

Our aim in publishing this magazine is to fill the Muslims of India with enthusiasm for becoming a part of modern civilization, so that the scorn with which civilized nations view them can be eliminated, and they can take their place among the civilized and respected nations of the world.

To Sir Syed, progress lay in Muslim youth becoming majors and colonels in glittering uniforms. His ultimate aim was education which would qualify Muslims for high office. Mahdi Efadi was quite correct when he called Sir Syed’s civilization “Anglo-Mohammadan culture”.

Kamal Ataturk (1881-1938) was another outstanding “modernist”. He went even further than Sir Syed in this matter. His aim in propagating western education and civilization in Turkey is clear from the name of his campaign: he and his colleagues called it “gharb do gharo” which, in Turkish, means “a journey towards the west”. People who resisted their attempts to introduce Roman script and make Turks wear European-style hats, were killed in their thousands as if they had rebelled against the state.

The result of these attempts to imitate the west was that these Muslim reformers concentrated all their attention on European languages, civilization and literature. They made no serious effort to introduce science and technology – the real secret of European advance – into the Muslim world. Sir Syed openly opposed technical education, giving priority to what he called “high-level intellectual education”, and most supporters of modern education supported his view. Their efforts were directed solely at creating a group of people imbued with the values of western civilization and literature. Only a few years elapsed between Kamal Ataturk’s secular revolution and the Russian Bolshevik revolution, the amazing fact is that while Russia has now entered the space-age, Turkey has turned into a mere store-house of western imports.

The spirit which led Europe to acquire Muslims’ learning was the desire to adopt their skills and use them to defeat the Muslims. They realized that this was where strength lay at that time, and they used it against their enemy. That was why they did not say that they were following the Muslims; rather they said that they were waging a spiritual crusade against their Saracen enemies. Indeed, they were applying a new technique to turn their failure in the crusades into a success. Then, when their efforts succeeded in giving birth to a new revolution in Europe, they behaved as if they had found their own lost glory: they called the new revolution in Europe the Renaissance – a word which means rebirth. They made it appear as if this was not something they had acquired from others, but Europe’s own property which had been refound. Though they had taken their learning from the Muslims, they linked it to the past rather than the present, and said that it had belonged to a European country – namely Greece. But this is not what the Muslims did, even though what Europe gave them was simply an advanced version of what they had bequeathed to Europe. Muslims sought western learning in an attempt to imitate the west, Sir Syed describing his initiative as being “in the footsteps of the west”, while Kamal Ataturk called it “a journey towards the west”. Since the two went about their respective task in such a different spirit, it was inevitable that Europe should defeat the Muslims with their own knowledge, whereas Muslims just became European puppets with the knowledge they had acquired from the west.

The final target of Kamal Ataturk’s movement was to make Turks wear hats and trousers. Sir Syed’s ambition was to make Muslim youth well-versed in European literature. Clearly, no other result could come of their efforts than that which actually emerged.

If history on the one hand tells us what Muslims have done wrong, it also tells what Muslims should do now: they should do exactly what Europe did with respect to them; they should acquire modern education and remain positive.

In the same way that Europeans discovered positive fields of action amongst difficult and negative circumstances, Muslims of the present day must also find constructive and positive fields of work in spite of the apparent negativity and adversity that surrounds them. If they fail to uncover these positive aspects for work then they will remain forever in failure.