Science
and
Political
Behaviour,
(London:
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 18:26 09 January 2017
Unwin-Hyman, 1983) p. 5.
25 Rosenbaum, Walter. Political Culture, (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, Praeger Publishers, 1975) p. 4.
26 Parsons, Talcott. The System of Modern Societies, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1971) p. 6.
27 Wilson, Richard. Compliance Ideologies, p. 12.
28 Almond, Gabriel and Verba, S. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, (London: Sage Publications, 1989) p. 18.
29 Welch, Stephen. The Concept Of Political Culture, p. 30.
30 Almond, Gabriel and Verba, S. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, p. 18.
Deconstructing political culture
31
31 Mazrui, Ali. Cultural Forces in World Politics, (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishers, 1990) pp. 4–9. Mazrui discusses the parochial aspects of political culture in Turkey, heightened under the late Mustafa Kemal Pasha, as state institutions
developed in contrast to local values.
32 Almond, Gabriel and Verba, S. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, pp. 29–31.
33 Ibid., p. 32.
34 Ibid., p. 30.
35 Welch, Stephen. The Concept Of Political Culture, p. 44.
36 Ibid., p. 61.
37 Brands, Maarten. ‘Pendulum Swing of a Paradigm? The Deceiving Perspective of Change’ in Maurice Cranston and Lea Campos Boralevi (eds), Culture and
Politics, (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988) p. 62.
38 Ibid., p. 62.
39 Thorne, Christopher. Allies of a Kind: The United States, Britain and the War Against Japan, (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1978) p. 99.
40 Myrdal, Gunnar. The American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1995) p. 4.
41 Hegel, GWF. The Philosophy of History, (New York: Dover Publications, 2004) p. 109.
42 Brands, Maarten. ‘Pendulum Swing of a Paradigm? The Deceiving Perspective of Change’ in Culture and Politics, p. 62.
43 Ibid., p. 63.
44 Ibid., p. 64.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Welch, Stephen. The Concept Of Political Culture, p. 13.
48 Ibid., p. 2.
49 Head, Kendra B., John P. Robinson and Jerold G. Rusk. Measures of Political Attitudes, (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research
Press, 1968) p. 5.
50 Ibid.
51 Dahl, Robert A. ‘The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Revolution’, American Political Science Review, 55
(1961): 764–72.
52 Welch, Stephen. The Concept of Political Culture, p. 3.
53 Ibid., p. 6.
54 Ibid., p. 45.
55 Ogburn, William. On Culture and Social Change, (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1968) p. 19.
56 Welch, Stephen. The Concept of Political Culture, p. 33.
57 Ibid., p. 7.
58 Rosenbaum, Walter. Political Culture, p. 7
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 18:26 09 January 2017
59 Ibid.
60 Barnard, F. M. ‘Culture and Political Development: Herder’s Suggestive Insights’, American Political Science Review 63 (1969): 379–97.
61 Ibid., p. 387.
62 Welch, Stephen. The Concept of Political Culture, p. 4.
63 Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures, (New York: Basic Books, 1973) p. 7.
64 Taylor, Charles. ‘Interpretation and the Sciences of Man’ in Review of Metaphysics, 25 (1971): 16.
65 Ibid., p. 18.
66 Ibid., p. 27.
67 Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures, p. 6.
32
Islam and Pakistan’s Political Culture
68 Ibid., p. 13.
69 Geertz, Clifford. ‘Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight’ in The Interpretation of Cultures, p. 448.
70 Welch, Stephen. The Concept of Political Culture, p. 8.
71 Geertz, Clifford. Local Knowledge: Further Essays on Interpretive Anthropology, (New York: Basic Books, 1983) p. 385.
72 Kockelmans, Joseph J. Edmund Husserl’s Phenomenology, (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1995) p. 9.
73 Welch, Stephen. The Concept of Political Culture, p. 108.
74 Schutz, Alfred. Phenomenology of the Social World. George Walsh, and Fredrick Lehnert (trans.), (Evanston, IL: North Western University Press, 1967) p. 11.
75 Welch, Stephen. The Concept of Political Culture, p. 108.
76 Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Knowledge: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge, (New York: Anchor Books, 1967) p. 53.
77 Geertz, Clifford. ‘The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man’
in the Interpretation of Cultures, p. 45.
78 Berger, Peter and Luckmann, Thomas. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge, p. 54.
79 Welch, Stephen. The Concept of Political Culture, (New York: Penguin, 1991) p. 109.
80 Rosenbaum, Walter. Political Culture, p. 8.
81 Inglehart, Ronald. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977) p. 246.
82 Ibid., p. 246.
83 Welch, Stephen. The Concept of Political Culture, p. 44.
84 Ibid., p. 34.
85 Inglehart, Ronald. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990) p. 17.
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 18:26 09 January 2017
Part 1
Foundational sphere of inquiry
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 18:26 09 January 2017
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 18:26 09 January 2017
3
The theory of knowledge and
Qur’anic epistemology1
Introduction
In the preceding chapter this book recognized the importance of existing
meaning, the stock of knowledge, core, or, enduring cultural component in
society, that permits a comprehensive definition of political culture. For
Muslim polities, we described that as the ‘foundational’ sphere of inquiry that
contains four components – namely, Qur’anic epistemology, Qur’an, Sunnah
and the Khulafa Rashidun. In this chapter we begin to define it by analyzing
Qur’anic epistemology. By doing so, this study will provide micro foundations/
perspectives before macro foundations; thus individual learning comes before
the principles of governing; and hence the logical and structural flow.
A comprehension of epistemology – or the theory of knowledge – is essential
for understanding how a particular civilization inculcates learning, establishes
a premise that governs the justification of belief and, thereby, makes valid
knowledge claims. 2 Relatedly, it enables us to grasp the unique processes of thought development therein, for undoubtedly the assembly of thought patterns
is not fortuitous. Actually, to put it plainly, the manner in which we think is a
by-product of our socialization and leads to the formation of beliefs that
empower us to distinguish between claims of truth and falsehood. That social
construction, consequently, mandates what constitutes knowledge for those
making assertions. This, in effect, is what epistemology provides: the foundation
for a specific worldview – a general ‘vision’ that defines how a people understand
their own ‘self’, law, theology, philosophy, art,
political culture, or even the entire universe.3 Rahman argues that:
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 18:26 09 January 2017
an Islamic worldview does need to be worked out today and that this is an
immediate imperative; for unless such a system is attempted, there is little
that can be ministered through education. But, here, precisely we come
up against the most vicious of all circles of contemporary Islam – that
unless necessary and far-reaching adjustments are made in the present
system of education, it is not even conceivable that creative minds will
arise that will work out the desired systematic interpretation of Islam.4
Without restraint, resolving this imperative is crucial – but how to do so?
36
Islam and Pakistan’s Political Culture
First, it is important to recognize that many epistemic traditions construct
different assumptions towards knowledge acquisition and the justification of
belief. In particular, the modern post-Enlightenment occidental epistemic
tradition, which today holds considerable sway throughout the world through
globalizing of ‘intimate and personal aspects’ of life, contrasts with Qur’anic
epistemology. 5 It is here, then, where we concentrate, in order to unravel those divergent, deep-seated epistemic assumptions that, later, assist us in understanding political culture. Yet enigmatic questions emerge: What is the
significance of those dissimilar assumptions for acquiring knowledge? What
are the distinguishing features of modern occidental epistemology? How does it
differ from a Qur’anic epistemology? What impact does Qur’anic epistemology
have on political values?
To put this in perspective, the development of the modern occidental theory
of knowledge is, principally, the unseemly consequence of the eighteenth
century ‘Age of Enlightenment’ in which the aim of achieving true knowledge
replaced God with ‘Science’.6 This new deity, too, had a sole offspring that became the much-acclaimed ‘modern’ man who recklessly celebrated his
newfound idol. Now, in a post-enlightenment occidental world, only ‘science’
is considered worthy enough to blind. However, a peculiar conundrum arose
from this changing of loyalties in that there was an epistemic paradigm
shift. What that means is that life was no longer understood the same way,
whether it be axiology, ontology or teleology – established meaning had
disappeared. Granted, the disappearance of meaning instigated a plethora
of creativity to reclaim lost spaces of understanding. However, replacing
‘God’ resulted in the creeping in of doubt and consumed the hitherto natural
order under the instrumentality of reason. 7 All that had once stood firmly withered away.
Here it is, as it were, that the ‘enlightened’ and ‘modern’ man finds himself
removing God from His Throne, to seat himself. However, he is confounded
by his own clumsy limitations, and thereby denies truth per se. As a result,
Taylor’s ‘malaise of modernity’ begins, leading to the disenchantment of the
world, its social relationships and a skeptical approach to knowledge. In that
context, it is unsurprising that epistemic studies in the occident would reveal
either a bewildering rejection of the attainment of true knowledge or, merely,
a plausible acceptance of its potential. The ‘instrumentality of reason’ would
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 18:26 09 January 2017
have it that ‘reason’ and individual ‘self-sufficiency’ would allow men to
emerge confident from the shackles of their intellectual servitude. Yet that
hardly held true, with man increasingly alienating himself from his surroundings.
Kant concisely defines the enlightenment as ‘man’s emergence from his self-
incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding
without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-incurred when its cause
lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it
without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [Dare to be wise] “Have courage
to use your own understanding!” ’8 Now, in this intellectual milieu, individualism thrives. Yet with all the euphoria associated with individualism, and
The theory of knowledge and Qur’anic epistemology 37
notwithstanding Kant’s caution against unbridled disregard for society, nar-
cissism tramples human responsibility to one another to fulfill Nietzsche’s
nightmare of ‘miserable ease’.9 These intellectual challenges continue to perplex contemporary occidental epistemology.
Markedly, Islam’s perspective on epistemology began on an entirely different
premise and, nowadays, faces an altogether unusual crisis. It started with the
Qur’anic ayah of ‘Read, in the Name of your Lord who has created all that
exists’.10 From that historic moment onwards, revelation was introduced into a world of reason. And the pursuit of knowledge was to be undertaken while
being cognizant of God through textual association. As a matter of fact, ‘faith
and knowledge’ became the defining ethos of Islamic civilization.11 This epistemic paradigm would remain intact, largely unchallenged, until the ‘Treaty of
Westphalia’ and the consequent economic, political and cultural ascendancy
of Europe.12 Slowly the epistemic heritage of Islam would come under increasing threat, initially from within by those mesmerized by European pre-eminence. Yet
it was to eventually capitulate under the brute force of colonialism. Of course,
Muslim society was not alone in facing this imperialist onslaught. Toynbee
speaks of ‘Western conquest’ throughout the world, especially in the political
and economic realms. 13 However, what this imperial conquest did was impose, or attempt to impose, an epistemology on the subject peoples. Said,
succinctly, reflects that ‘colonialism’ continues unabated ‘in a kind of general
cultural sphere as well as in specific political, ideological and social practices’. 14
To be precise, this kind of general cultural imperialism is where occidental
epistemology encroaches on the Muslim socio-cultural values and develops
into a crisis. 15 This makes articulating a Qur’anic epistemology, in the context of this tension, with its impact on values, critical for understanding political culture.
Today, everything from textbooks to television in English largely reinforces
an occidental epistemology that clashes with established meaning in Muslim
society. Similarly, that imposing vernacular expresses an axiology, teleology
and ontology that conveys contrasting conceptions of religion, politics, culture,
gender, or even human beings. Elmessiri points out this discrepancy, suggesting
it results in dissonance by producing either rejectionists or mindless imitation.16
This holds particularly true for intellectuals throughout Muslim society, who
are socialized in their local epistemic tradition, while institutionalized in a
conflicting occidental epistemology. Perhaps this epistemic dissonance is the
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 18:26 09 January 2017
principal problem in arresting scholarship in Muslim societies. And in order
to excel in building science, competitive culture or a progressive civilization their scholarship must be rooted to their own epistemology. The question is, though,
how do we begin to unders
tand that epistemology?
Muslims understand the Qur’an as the infallible word of God, in which the
origins, acquisition and dissemination of knowledge is made clear.17 The Qur’an shapes the mindset of those who read and accept it, thereby effecting
socialization. It is here, then, that we look to decipher the contours of
Qur’anic epistemology. As well, this task will allow us a better appreciation of
the development of a wider, more encompassing Islamic epistemology.
38
Islam and Pakistan’s Political Culture
Nevertheless, a Qur’anic epistemological account must contain an evaluative
dimension, a means to distinguish between what we merely take as knowledge
and what real knowledge is. Moreover, it must provide the context within
which to pursue this evaluative task. However, this article will not answer all
questions concerning Qur’anic epistemology, and definitely will not insist that
it is the only epistemology that may be articulated from the Qur’an. It aims
only to offer insights, according to Qur’anic textual analysis of the origins,
acquisition and dissemination of knowledge.
To begin, this chapter will identify and describe two primary trends in
modern occidental epistemology: (a) ‘plausibility’ – that we might be able to
attain true knowledge, if it exists; (b) ‘denial’ – a skeptical approach that
believes we are unable to attain true knowledge, since there is no such thing.
Thereafter, this article exposes insights for an alternative Qur’anic epistemology,
which begins with the affirmation or certainty of ‘God knowing’ with the
potential for human knowing. In other words, it establishes an optimistic
attitude of ‘True’ knowledge being possible – nevertheless, ‘I’ may be wrong,
though God knows, and the potentiality of certainty is ever-present, even if
distinct from my perspective. This, critically, allows us to appreciate the
manner in which learning takes place in Muslim society, which thereafter
provides a key insight into defining political culture.
Deconstructing occidental epistemology
Post-Enlightenment Europe embarked on a new epistemic journey that resulted
in disenchantment with its hitherto natural order. That, consequently, let
Islam and Pakistan’s Political Culture Page 9