Prof. Ziauddin Sardar

Postmodernism states that all big ideas that have shaped our society, like Religion, Reason, Science, Tradition, History, Morality, Marxism, do not stand up to philosophical scrutiny. There is no such thing as Truth. Anything that claims to provide us with absolute truth is a sham. It must be abandoned.

Moreover, postmodernism suggests, there is no ultimate Reality. We see what we want to see, what our position in time and place allows us to see, what our cultural and historic perceptions focus on. Instead of reality, what we have is an ocean of images; a world where all distinction between image and material reality has been lost. Postmodernism posits the world as a video game: seduced by the allure of the spectacle, we have all become characters in the global video game, zapping our way from here to there, fighting wars in cyberspace, making love to digitised bits of information. We float on an endless sea of images and stories that shape our perception and our individual ‘reality’.

In contrast, transmodernism goes beyond modernity; it transcend modernity in that it takes us trans – i.e. through modernity into another state of being. Thus, unlike postmodernism, transmodernism is not a linear projection. We can best understand it with the aid of chaos theory. In all complex systems – societies, civilisations, eco-systems etc. – many independent variables are interacting with each other in great many ways. Chaos theory teaches us that complex systems have the ability to create order out of chaos. This happens at a balancing point, called the ‘edge of chaos’. At the edge of chaos, the system is in a kind of suspended animation between stability and total dissolution into chaos. At this point, almost any factor can push the system into one or other direction. However, complex systems at the edge of chaos have the ability to spontaneously self-organise themselves into a higher order; in other words the system ‘evolves’ spontaneously into a new mode of existence. Transmodernism is the transfer of modernity from the edge of chaos into a new order of society. As such, transmoderism and tradition are not two opposing worldviews but a new synthesis of both. Traditional societies use their ability to change and become transmodern while remaining the same! Both sides of the equation are important here: change has to be made and accommodated; but the fundamental tenets of tradition, the source of its identity and sacredness, remain the same. So we may define a transmodern future as a

synthesis between life enhancing tradition - that is amenable to change and transition - and a new form of modernity that respects the values and lifestyles of traditional cultures. It is in this sense that traditional communities are not pre-modern but transmodern. Given that vast majority of the Muslim world consists of traditional communities that see their tradition as a life-enhancing force, the vast majority of Muslims worldwide are thus more transmodern than pre-modern.

Most politicians, bureaucrats and decision-makers do not appreciate this point. The reason for this that when traditions change, the change is often invisible to the outsiders. Therefore, observers can go on maintaining their modern or postmodern distaste for tradition irrespective of the counter evidence before their very eyes. The contemporary world does provide opportunity for tradition to go on being what tradition has always been, an adaptive force. The problem is that no amount of adaptation, however much it strengthens traditional societies, actually frees them from the yoke of being marginal, misunderstood and misrepresented. It does nothing to dethrone the concept ‘Tradition’ as an idee fixe of western society.

The West has always seen Islam through the lens of modernity and concluded that it is a negative, closed system. Nothing could be further from the truth. Islam is a dynamic, open system with a very large common ground with the West. But to appreciate this, Islam has to be seen from the perspective of transmodernism and understood with its own concepts and categories.

Consensual politics and modalities for adjusting to change are there at the very heart of Islam. Consider the fundamental concepts and values of Islam which shape the goals of a Muslim society. These concepts generate the basic values of an Islamic culture and form a parameter within which an ideal Islamic society develops and progresses. These concepts include such notions as tawheed (unity), khilafah (trusteeship), ijtihad (sustained reasoning), ijma (consensus), shura (consultation) and istislah (public interest). Usually, the concept of Tawheed is translated as unity of God. It becomes an all-embracing value when this unity is asserted in the unity of humanity, unity of man and nature, and the unity of knowledge and values. From tawheed emerges the concept of khilafah: that persons are not independent of God but are responsible and accountable to God for all their thoughts and actions. The trusteeship implies that people have no exclusive right to anything and that they are responsible for maintaining and preserving the integrity of the abode of their terrestrial journey. Khilafa also makes political leaders accountable not just to God but also to other trustees – the community as a whole. Political change in state and society is brought about by the use of ijtihad which has been used throughout Muslim history to adjust to change, innovate tradition and introduce progressive ideas in the community. And the community has to be consulted on the basis of the notion of shura and its consensus - ijma – is needed to give legitimacy to change and innovation. At all times, change has to reflect public interest – istislah. Given such a matrix of fundamental concepts and values, it is difficult to perceive Islam as a closed system or a negative, backward looking worldview.

The brutal force with which modernity was introduced in the Muslim world, and the savage way in which tradition was suppressed, has meant that Muslim societies have not been able to practice these fundamental values of Islam. The perennial desire of all Muslim societies is to go forward to the practice of these values and take a quantum leap from instrumental modernity to enlighten transmodernism. Such fundamental concepts of Islam as ijtihad (sustained reasoning), ijma (consensus) and shura (consultation) have to be used to develop contemporary models of governance and social change that are based on needs and aspirations of ordinary Muslims. Theoretical and intellectual work in this area has been going on for over two decades now and the initial efforts provide us with reasons for optimism. And a transmodern framework for discussion would enhance the possibility of this positive change and usher democracy, consensual and accountable politics, and enlightened modes of governance in the Muslim world.

In developing a transmodern framework for discussion it is important to think of the Muslim world beyond the straight jackets of governments. Most Muslim countries are governed by ultra modernists or ultra traditionalists – neither of whom have any understanding of transmodernism. We need to go beyond decision makers and involve ordinary people – scholars, writers, activists, academics, journalists – in our discussions. We will discover that most people have a critical but positive attitude towards the West; and women will be as willing, if not more so, to participate in such discussions and the transformations they may initiate, as men. Particularly, if the West shifts towards transmodernism, involvement of the public will open up massive new possibilities for positive change and fruitful synthesis. However, this does mean that European analysis of Islam must rise above such one-dimensional thesis as the ‘Clash of Civilisations’ or ‘the end of history’. Transmodernism is not about conflict, or a false sense of aggrandisement, but about symbiosis between Islam and the West. Its aim must be to replace homogenising globalisation with what Anwar Ibrahim has called ‘global convivencia’ – that is, a more harmonious and enriching experience of living together.