Prof. Ziauddin Sardar

Muslim societies everywhere are caught in a pincer movement: they are being squeezed, on the one hand, by forces of modernity and postmodernism, and on the other, by an emergent traditionalism that often takes a militant form. In the late forties and fifties, when most Muslim countries obtained their independence, modernisation - or more specifically development along Western patterns - was seen as a panacea for all social and economic ills. Indeed, most Muslim countries whole-heartedly embarked on a rapid course of modernisation.

But the strategies for modernisation were, on the whole, out of step with traditional societies they were attempting to change. Thus a rift developed between those who backed modernisation and accompanying Westernisation and those who were concerned about preserving traditional culture, lifestyle and outlook of Muslim societies. In most cases, the traditionalists saw modernisation and the associated policies of ‘development’ as an onslaught on their history, life-style and worldview. The modernists saw westernisation as the primary means of survival for Muslim countries. As modernity looses ground both in the West and the non-west, postmodernism, and its accompanied globalisation, is being projected as the new theory of salvation.

And traditionalists are reacting against postmodernism just as vehemently, if not more so, as they did against modernity.

The modernist leaders, who took over from the departing colonial powers, maintained their hold on Muslim societies with excessive use of force and by ruthlessly persecuting the traditional leadership and abusing and ridiculing traditional thought and everything associated with it. The economic and development policies they pursued often ended in spectacular failure and accumulated national wealth in fewer and fewer hands. Postmodernism has further marginalised tradition and traditional cultures creating a siege mentality in historic communities.

These factors have contributed to the emergence, throughout the Muslim world, of a new form of militant traditionalism. To a very large extent, all Muslims are ‘fundamentalist’ in that they believe the Qur’an to be the literal Word of God. But the fundamentalism of militant traditionalism is of a special variety in that it insists on a single interpretation of Islam which can only be manifested in terms of an ‘Islamic state’. In this framework, the integrated, holistic and God-centered worldview of Islam is transformed into a totalitarian, theocratic world order and a persuasive moral God is replaced by a coercive, political one.

The Muslim world thus finds itself caught between an intense struggle between the combined forces of an aggressively secular modernity and a relativistic postmodernism pitted against an equally aggressive traditionalism. This struggle is quite evident in countries like Pakistan, Egypt and the Sudan. But it is also present in states which are not currently attracting media attention: Algeria, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and even in the new Muslim republics of Central Asia. These forces are pulling Muslim societies in two different directions and are thus threatening them with fragmentation. And the West must accept certain responsibility for this state of affairs.

Modernity sees traditional societies as backward, ‘living in the past’. The essential principles of tradition are seen as the cause of ‘backwardness’, just as it is in their nature to be incapable of change. Therefore the tradition of Muslim societies is a major hurdle towards development and ‘modernisation’. The classic texts of development all argued that tradition must be abandoned, indeed suppressed where necessary, if ‘backward’ societies of the Muslim World were to develop and ‘catch up with the West’. And, in the name of development and progress, traditional cultures have been uprooted, displaced, suppressed and annihilated. Postmodernism simply considers tradition to be dangerous; it is often associated with ‘essentialism’ - that is, harking back to some puritan notion of good society that may or may not have existed in history.

It is important to appreciate that traditional communities do not see tradition in this way. They do not view tradition as something fixed in history but see it as dynamic; they reinvent and innovate tradition constantly. Indeed, a tradition that does not change ceases to be a tradition. But traditions change in a specific way. They change within their own parameters, at their own speed, and towards their chosen direction. There is good reason for this. If traditions were to vacate the space they occupy they would cease to be meaningful. When tradition is cherished and celebrated the entire content of what is lauded can be changed. Such change is then meaningful because it is integrated and enveloped by the continuing sense of identity that tradition provides. Furthermore change can be an evaluated process, a sifting of good, better, best as well as under no circumstances, an adaptation that operates according to the values the veneration of tradition has maintained intact. Thus, non-western traditional communities do not think of tradition as something that will take them to pre-modern times; on the contrary, tradition will take them forward, with their identity intact, to a transmodern future.

What would be a transmodernism future? To appreciate what is at issue here, it is necessary to distinguish between postmodernism and transmodernism. Postmodernism is what comes after modernity; it is post in terms of time; it is a natural conclusion of modernity. This is why it is sometimes described as ‘the logic of late capitalism’. It represents a liner trajectory that starts with colonialism, continues with modernity and ends with post-modernity, or postmodernism. It is not surprising than that postmodernism and tradition are like two fuming bulls in a ring: they are inimically antagonistic to each other.