This column sets out to explore the intellectual convolutions of the 19^th Century and Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s endeavours to bring about a new epistemic synthesis. That synthesis between the revealed truth claims and the verifiable facts that derived veracity through empirical sciences brought to the fore many controversies, baffling Muslim ulema.

Sir Syed propound a new ilm-ul-Kalam in which rationality and revelation were presented as the two sides of the same coin. I argue, contrary to the prevalent view that Sir Syed, despite having given significance to rationality, steadfastly adhered to tradition embedded in revealed texts. Throughout his disputations, he seems to be in pursuit of the ultimate ‘truth’ enshrined in the revealed texts. He treated rationality as an instrument whereby truth could be ascertained and verified.

The modern sciences had become an essential part of the general instruction in Northern India in the first half of the 19^th Century not only in the government-run institutions but also in missionary schools. Many of the tenets of science imparted at various levels appeared to contradict “even the reduced body of truly revealed, prophetical texts.”

That situation uncannily resembled the earlier clash in the Islamic history of Greek philosophy, including the sciences and the truth enshrined in the Quranic revelation. Syed Ahmad Khan become cognizant of that problem in the 1840s and ’50s but he tried to address it in full earnestness in Tabyin al-Kalam. In 1848, he produced a tiny tract Qaul-i-Matin, in which he defended the Ptolemeon weltanschauung on philosophical and scientific grounds alone. But when he embraced the truth claims foregrounded as an outcome of the Copernican revolution, “it became impossible to avoid a reassessment of the customary interpretation of many revealed passages.”

Sir Syed tried to resolve the conflict between the text of revelation and the findings of the empirical sciences. Christian W Troll has put together a few postulates that Sir Syed formulated to bring knowledge bequeathed to humanity through revelation and the verifiable truth claims propounded by the empirical sciences.

Regarding the practice of taawil, Sir Syed was of the view that close enquiry into the use and meaning of the Quranic language yields the true meaning of the word or passage in question, that is, the meaning that does not contradict the truth which has been established decisively by modern science. This meaning, although only discovered now, was in fact intended by the Supreme body from whom the revelation originated. What it actually means is the scientifically verified knowledge had already existed in the revealed texts, which science could manage to discover much later.

Here Sir Syed accords primacy to the revealed sources rather than empirical sciences. Then Sir Syed asserted quite emphatically that the revealed sources (read texts) and the modern sciences referred to the same kind of verifiable, factual, descriptive truth about an objective world, and thus cannot refute each other. Discrepancy and contradictions are merely superficial and arose from a misrepresentation of the revealed texts.

Christian W Troll has put together a few postulates that Sir Syed formulated to bring knowledge bequeathed to humanity through revelation and the verifiable truth claims propounded by the empirical sciences.

Sir Syed advocated the scientific rationality as a valid criterion to interpret revealed texts. If there are several interpretations available, the one closer to the scrutiny of scientific criterion gets precedence. Here he sees correspondence in rational proof (aqli dalil) and the law of nature. Here Sir Syed appears ambivalent because he does not define ‘reason’ and ‘nature’ in clear terms. To him, the modern sciences establish truths that claim the same degree of certainty as the first principles (awwaliyat) of classical philosophy.

Those interested in Muslim philosophy can draw out some commonality between Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s conception of the relationship of the revealed knowledge and empirical sciences and that of Ibn Rushd (1126-1198), an Andalusian polymath of Berber descent. Ibn Rushd’s influential commentaries and unique interpretations on Aristotle revived Western scholarly interest in the ancient Greek philosophy, whose works for the most part, had been neglected since the sixth century.

In simpler terms, Ibn Rushd asserted the correspondence between the demonstrative and scriptural truth. They cannot conflict and if the apparent meaning of scripture conflicts with demonstrative conclusions, it must be interpreted metaphorically.

Lastly, Sir Syed despite espousing rationality (ta’aqul), does not rate scriptural texts lower than sciences. To a believer, a scripture enjoins to contemplate and to improve his knowledge of it and does all that it takes to know God and His law. Demonstrative philosophy on which the new (empirical) sciences are predicated is only one of the main sources of our understanding of the ‘truth’.

The general propensity of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s religious thought towards rationality came to prominence in the early 1860s. However, only from the 1870s onwards does reason assume in his thought the position of the final and universal criterion of truth and the law of nature assumes the character of uniformity and inviolability.

The new, radical position is stated in the introduction to Khutabat-i-Ahmadiya (1870). The reflection upon the plurality of religions claiming exclusive truth, together with his own search for one, essential and true religion persuaded him to hold reason (aql) to be the final criterion of the truth. The only reliable means of choosing between the various claims to essential truth is a principle which would underlie the truth of all. This principle, as far as a man through his rational powers can know, is nothing but the law of nature.

Nature or the law of nature alludes to the wonderful harmony of the whole world of matter and spirit. That was the reason his detractors mocked him as naturi. Having said that, Sir Syed’s prime concern remained Indian Muslims and he was in reactive mode vis a vis Christian missionaries and people like William Muir, who authored a disparaging treatise on the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). While holding firm on the supra natural status of God and the Quran, he seemed to have accommodated rationality in his epistemic trope but just as an instrument. Primacy for Sir Syed was the revealed truth, strongly entrenched in socio-political context.

(Concluded)

The writer is a professional historian and an author. He can be reached at tk393@cam.ac.uk