Syed Amir 'Ali and His Thought

SYED AMĪR ‘ALĪ AND HIS THOUGHT
By Machnun Husein
[Former Senior Lecturer in Islamic Studies, the Jakarta Muhammadiyah University]

To almost every student of Islam, Syed Amīr ‘Alī (1849-1928) is invariably recognized as a Muslim thinker of India who is, like Shaikh Muhammad ‘Abduh (1849-1905) of Egypt, not only well known to Muslims in his own country but also those in other countries as well. Although he is a Shi‘ite by origin, his works, especially his Spirit of Islam, occupy a leading place among the classics of modernism in Egypt, and they have furnished materials and arguments for a great number of articles, pamphlets, lectures, and books (Gibb, 1978:70-1). It is reasonable, therefore, to say that he has a considerable influence to the Muslims by and large, rather than those committed only in the Shi‘ite sect.

To the students of Islam of the West, the name of Amīr ‘Alī is also familiar enough because he is perhaps the second Muslim thinker, after Sir Syed Ahmad Khān (1817-98), who communicates Islam to the people of the West in English. Not only do they recognize him as a modern Muslim thinker, but also regard him as the biggest apologist the Muslim World has ever produced. As H.A.R. Gibb stated, he is one of several scholars in the generation after Sir Syed Ahmad Khān who works out of a new Muslim liberal apologetic and ideology, which has replaced for thousands (if not millions) of Muslims the traditional presentation – and that not only in India but throughout the Muslim world (Gibb, 1978:59).

According to Gibb, this apologetic is primarily directed toward other Muslims in order to maintain their inner loyalty to Islam (Gibb, 1978:68), while the object of the apologists is the prove the divinely-inspired origin of the Islamic religion and way of life, in order to establish and strengthen the foundations of an ethic which would otherwise stand exposed and helpless before the subtle assaults of secularism (Gibb, 1978:53).

It is obvious that Amīr ‘Alī’s work is almost entirely apologetic and defensive, and even in some cases, especially in the case of Christianity, he tends to be an offender (Maqsood Ahmad, 1988:103) or a controversialist, to borrow Gibb’s terminology, who primarily directs against Christianity and against the attacks of Christian missionaries (Gibb, 1978:68). What Gibb has said above is, in fact, quite true and even, according to me, it is a conditio sine qua non to anybody professing any religion: he is an apologist in as much as he should be sure and assure anyone else that the religion he is professing is true while, at the same time, other religions are not true. In other words, whatever one says about Amīr ‘Alī, he is a modern Muslim thinker and has some thought on Islam, in spite of possible differences from those of others. He has, as Farquhar remarks in his Modern Religious Movement (1967:97), double aim in view: (1) to defend Islam from Christian criticism and the corroding influences of Western thought in general, and (2) to prove that the religious, social, moral, and political reforms which, through Christian teachings, modern thought and the pressure of the times, are being inevitably forced on Muhammadan society and are in full consonance with Islam (Maqsood Ahmad, 1988:103). Though the second aim of Amīr ‘Alī, as stated by Farquhar, is open to question, I propose to say nothing about it save that Amīr ‘Alī is indeed greatly influenced by Western thought and culture.
This short article is not intended to deal with Amīr ‘Alī and his thought in detail but rather to jot down some of his religious thought with a slight comment so as to show, at least, his position among other modern Muslim thinkers, especially, of his day.

Amīr ‘Alī’s brief Biography

Amīr ‘Alī was born in Cuttack, Oressa, India, on April 6, 1949 and died in Sussex, England, on August 3, 1928. He was surnamed “Sayyid” [Syed] as the descendant of the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h). In his memoirs appeared in some issues of Heyderabad’s Islamic Culture, between October 1931 – October 1932, he traces his family origin to the 8th Twelver’s Shi‘ite Imām [Syī‘ah Ithnā ‘Ashariyya], ‘Alī al Rizā, who was buried in the city of Mashhad, Khurāsān, at the northeast Persia (Anis Ahmad, 1980:54; Maqsood Ahmad, 1988:102-3).

It was around this city that Amīr ‘Alī’s ancestors were settled before they moved to India. His great grandfather, Ahmad Afzal Khān, an officer in the army of the famous Nadīr Shah and the commander in chief at the Khurāsān contingent, plundered Delhi, the capital city of Mughal sultanate, during the rule of Muhammad Shah. On the request of the Sultan Mughal he settled in India taking 7,000 cavalries with him (Anis Ahmad, 1980:54).

When Delhi was attacked by the Marhattas’ troops, he did his best to defend the city but, unfortunately, he was killed in the battle. His son, Muhammad Tāhir, took refuge in Lahore, a city in the north, and, at the request of Shuja‘ al Daulah, the ruler of Oudh, he joined the army. Muhammad Tāhir has a son, Mansūr ‘Alī Khān alias Munawwar ‘Alī Khān, and the latter has also a son, Sa‘ādat ‘Alī Khān, who is Amīr ‘Alī’s father (Anis Ahmad, 1980:54; Maqsood Ahmad, 1988:101).

Unlike his father and grandfathers, Sa‘ādat ‘Alī took part in neither the army nor the polity. He was graduated from a medical school and had, therefore, been working as a physician. He made extensive journeys around the whole country before he finally settled in Cuttack where his five sons were born. And Amīr ‘Alī was the fourth of them (Anis Ahmad, 1980:55).

Sa‘ādat ‘Alī wanted his children to have the best education so he decided to move to Calcutta where he sent Amīr ‘Alī and three of his brothers to en English school. But life in Calcutta did not seem agreeable to him so that he eventually, at the suggestion of one of his close friends, Syed Karāmat ‘Alī, the mutawakkil (custodian) of the Muhsin Endowment or the Shi‘ite Mosque in Hoogly, moved to Hoogly and transferred his sons to the Muhsiniyyat College in that city. In the meantime, he also invited a maulvi (Islamic scholar) to his house to tutor his children in fundamental Islamic teachings as well as Persian and Urdu languages (Anis Ahmad, 1980:55).

Amīr ‘Alī, after finishing his studies in Hoogly advanced his studies in the Faculty of Arts and Law at the Calcutta University, from where he earned his M. A. Degree in Law in 1868; and he was the first IndianMuslim who earned such a degree. Soon afterwards, on the advice of Robert Thwaytes, then Principal of the Muhsiniyyat College, he applied for a scholarship for higher studies in England. He gained this scholarship and sailed for England in 1869. After finishing his studies with a Ph. D. Degree in Law in 1873 he returned to India and became a lecturer in Islamic Law at the Presidency College in Calcutta for 5 years (1873-7) (Maqsood Ahmad, 1988:102).

In 1877 he founded the National Muhammadan Association in Calcutta, the first Muslim political organization in India, which soon had 34 chapters throughout the country. It became de facto and even de jure representative organization of the Indian Muslim Community (Anis Ahmad, 1980:57; Wilfred Cantwell Smith, 1979:21-2). At first this association was supported by Sir Syed Ahmad Khān, who was also known as the founder of the Aligarh Muhammadan-Oriental College, but in 1884 he declined to support this association because, according to him, it might cause what he called communal friction among the people of India. He tended to be a pure nationalist and wanted to unite all the people of India regardless of what religion they belong to.

It is well known when he said:
Do you not inhabit the same land? … Remember that the words Hindu and Mahomedan are only meant for religious distinction – otherwise all persons, whether Hindu or Mahomedan even the Christians who reside in this country, are all in the particular respect belonging to one and the same nation (Smith, 1979:21).

In 1878 he served as a magistrate at Calcutta and, in the same year, he became a member of the Bengal Legislative Council. The following year he was appointed Chief Presidency Magistrate, a very unusual appointment for an Indian at that time, and in 1883 he became one of the three Indian additional legislative members of the Governor-General’s Council. He held the Tagore Law professorship at the University of Calcutta for two years (1884-5), and in 1890 he was appointed a judge of the Calcutta High Court and held this office until 1904, in which he retired and settled permanently in England until his death in 1928 (Maqsood Ahmad, 1988:102; Anis Ahmad, 1980:57; Harun Nasution, 1987:182).

From the above analysis one conclusion may be drawn that Amīr ‘Alī is not only known as a jurist, but also a scholar and even a political leader. In addition, one should not forget that he is also a historian of Islam. His fame as a historian is even much bigger than as a jurist because of among other facts that he wrote several books on History, including A Critical Examination of the Life and Teaching of Muhammad, his first book on Islamic History and even the first presentation of Islam by a Muslim in English (Maqsood Ahmad, 1988:103).

As to why he is interested in history may be of great importance to know. Amīr ‘Alī, from his childhood was fond of reading. In one of his memoirs appeared in Islamic Culture of October 1931 issue, he said:

I was a voracious reader, and had finished most of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall [of the Roman Empire] before I was twelve. Although many parts were too difficult for me to understand, and I needed to read over and over again later, the picture of the Roman Empire and its development and the march of the conquering legions enthralled me. But the sixth volume in which the historian describes the rise of the Saracenic power I found especially fascinating (Anis Ahmad, 1980:55).

It is his interest in reading history as well as literature books, especially Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, that grows his intention of being, some time in the future, an expert in Islamic History.

His Works in Brief

Amīr ‘Alī is a prolific writer. Not only did he write essays and articles for several media but also wrote books. As stated before, his first book is A Critical Examination of the Life and Teaching of Muhammad. Amīr ‘Alī said that half of it had been written by his father before he died. He completed the book in 1872 when he was still in London and successfully published it the following year (Anis Ahmad, 1980:55-7).

He wrote about 9 books, some of which are translated into Urdu language. But the most well known of them are The Spirit of Islam (first published in 1899) and A History of the Saracens (first published in 1889). Unlike his other books, his Spirit of Islam not only deals with history but also with religious matters. The first part, “The Life and Ministry of the Prophet,” specifically deals with the history of Muhammad, while the second one, “The Spirit of Islam,” deals with the teachings of Islam comprehensively. Almost all of his thought on religion are included in this part.

In his preface Amīr ‘Alī said that the book was an attempt "to give the history of the evolution of Islam as a world-religion; of its rapid spread and the remarkable hold it obtained over the conscience and minds of millions of people within a short space of time." (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:vii).

According to M. A. Karandikar in his article, “Islam in Indian Politics,” this ook marks the beginning of a new trend among educated Indian Muslims to develop a new interpretation of Islam at the time they started wavering in their loyalty towards the British, i.e. Islam is superior to all other religions including Christianity (Attas Singh, 1976:80).

His Fundamental Thoughts on Religion

According to Amīr ‘Alī the religion of Islam is not called after the name of Muhammad, although he is is founder as the Westerners usually say. The word Islam itself is derived from the word salām or salāma which has two meanings: (1) to be tranquil, at rest, to have done one’s duty, to have paid up, or to be at perfect peace, and (2) to surrender oneself to Him with whom peace is made. The word Islam, therefore, means peace, greeting, safety or salvation. Nevertheless, it does not imply, as is commonly supposed, absolute submission to God’s will, but means striving after righteousness (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:137-8).

The essence of the ethical principles involved and embodied in Islam, according to him, is summarized in the first six verses of the second chapter of the Qur’an (Al-Baqarah). And based on them he concludes that the principal bases of Islamic systems are: (1) belief in the unity, immateriality, power, mercy, and supreme love of the Creator, (2) charity and brotherhood among mankind, (3) subjugation of the passions, (4) the outpouring of a greatful heart to the Giver of all good, and (5) accountability for human actions in another existence (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:138).

According to him, appeal is made by Islam to the inner consciousness of man, or his intuitive reason alone (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:138) so that by which man is aware of elevating his humanity to fulfill his duty to God by way of his services to mankind (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:174).

It is obvious, therefore, that in Islam not only are there human and rational aspects but there is also belief or dogmatic aspect, although the latter is, according to Amīr ‘Alī, limited only to the unity of God or tauhīd. In this respect he explicitly asserts:

In Islam …; with the exception of the unity of God – the doctrine of Tauhīd, which was the foundation of Mohammed’s Church – there was no dogma upon which insistence was placed in any such form as to compel Reason to hold back it acceptance (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:423).

His Thought on God and Man

As to God, Amīr ‘Alī seems to accept completely the concept of God and His Unity as explained in the Qur’an and opposed anthropomorphism, anthroposophism as well anthropopathism. That is why, not only does he oppose Christian anthropomorphic God but also rejects Ash‘arite notion which tends to describe and reason about God in terms of human wisdom. He , furthermore, also rejects the monistic and pantheistic concepts of God and man convinced by some Sufi leaders.

Indeed, Amīr ‘Alī explicitly believes in God’s attributes but he does not explain whether they are His essential attributes (sifat al żātiyya) as recognized by the Mu‘tazilite or His non-essential attributes (sifat ghair al żātiyya) as convinced by the Ash‘arites. But from his analysis on God and man, it is obvious that Amīr ‘Alī tends to accept the Mu‘tazilite with its notion of free will of man (qadariyya), rather than the Ash‘arite committed to the fatalism (jabariyya).

In this respect Amīr ‘Alī said:
One of the remarkable characteristics of the Koran is the curious, and, at first sight, inconsistent, manner in which it combines the existence of a Divine Will, which not only orders all things, but which acts directly upon men and addresses itself to the springs of thought in them, with the assertion of a free agency in man and of the liberty of intellect. … But in the Koran the conception of human responsibility is strongly developed that the question naturally occurs to the mind, How can those two ideas be reconciled with each other? (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:403-4).

According to him, the key for understanding this mystery are beliefs in what he calls the “active ever-living Principle,” i.e. all powerful Will of God, and in “the progress of man” (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:404). In many verses of the Qur’an that Amīr ‘Alī quoted, there are words taqdīr or qadar which, according to him, most of them mean “law of nature.” He said:
The stars and planets heave each their appointed course; so has every other object in reason. The movements of the heavenly bodies, the phenomenon of nature, life and death, are all governed by law (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:405).

Meanwhile, some other verses that he also quoted, obviously indicate the Divine agency upon human will or “conditioned” upon human will. He said:
It is to the seeker for Divine help that God renders His help; it is on the searcher of his own heart, who purifies his soul from impure longings, that God bestows grace (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:405-6).

Amīr ‘Alī admits hat our belief in God springs from the very essence of Divine ordinance or, strictly speaking, Divine laws that regulate the movements of heavenly bodies. But the will of God is not an arbitrary one: it is an educating will, to be obeyed by the scholar in his walks of learning as by the devotee in his cell. That is why, the verses in which human responsibility and the freedom of human will are laid down in emphatic terms define and limit the conception of absolutism (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:406).

He, therefore, explicitly says:
Man, within the limited sphere of his existence, is absolute master of his conduct. He is responsible for his actions, and for the use or misuse of the powers with which he has been endowed. He may fall or rise, according to his “inclination.” There was supreme assistance for him who sought Divine help and guidance (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:407).

Acording to Amīr ‘Alī every human being has two inclinations, one prompting him to good and impelling him thereto, and the other prompting him to evil and thereto impelling him. In this case he quotes ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib’s sayings in one of his sermons, collected by Sharīf Rizā in his Nahj al-Balāghah, as follows:

It is your conduct which will lead you to paradise or hell, as if you had been destined therefore. No man’s conduct is the outcome of fatality, nor is he borne along by an irresistible decree to heaven or hell; on the contrary, the ultimate result is the creation of his own actions, for each individual is primarily answerable for his future destiny (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:408)
Still in this respect, Amīr ‘Alī also quotes ‘Alī as saying:

Say not that man is compelled, for that it is attribution of tyranny to God; nor say that man has absolute discretion [i.e. to decide what is right and what is wrong – Ameer Alī’s note], grace is our endeavours to act righteously, and we transgress because of our neglect (of His commands) (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:410).

From the above analyses, it is clear that Amīr ‘Alī tends more to qadariyya rather that jabariyya, although in some cases he does not accept the notions of Mu‘tazilite, such as on the limitless power of reason.

His Thought on This-World and Other-world Lives

This-world life is, to Amīr ‘Alī, very significant, especially in relation to the actualization of religious teachings. Islam as a religion, in the words of Amīr ‘Alī, is not “a mere creed; it is a life to be believed in the present” – a religion of right-doing and right-thinking, founded on divine love, universal charity, and the equality of man in the sight of the Lord (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:178).
According to him, the present life is the seed-ground of the future one, in which every human being is responsible for all his deeds before God and by which he will be happy or unhappy in the hereafter (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:179; Harun Nasution, 1987:184).

Two beliefs that should be accepted by all Muslims, in relation to the other-world life, area; (1) every human being will have to render an account of his or her actions on earth, and (2) the happiness or misery of individuals will depend upon the manner in which they have performed the behests of their Creator. Anything else outside both beliefs, that are usually under disputes among Muslim thinkers, according to him, must not be accepted, including questions on what paradise and hell really are (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:197-8).

According to Amīr ‘Alī, the idea of happiness and unhappiness in the other-world life has something to do with this-world life, in that by which man is appealed to keep his morality and to perform good deeds. In other words, it might remind and even to make man aware of fulfilling his responsibilities (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:176).

He thinks that happiness and misery in the other-world life is spiritual although they are described concretely. According to him various chapters of the Qur’an containing the descriptions of paradise as well as hell were wholly or in part revealed in Mecca so that it must be in accordance with the religious consciousness at that time. Muhammad himself not only speaks with people of high intellectuality who can perceive abstract things, but also with the common world which was then sank in materialism. So he had to adapt himself to the understanding of all (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:198-9). In this respect he wrote:

Probably in the infancy of his religious consciousness, Mohamed himself believed in some or other of the traditions which floated around him. But with a wider awakening of the soul, a deeper communion with the Creator of the Universe, thoughts, which bore a material aspect at first, became spiritualized. The mind of the Teacher progressed not only with the march of time and the development of his religious consciousness, but also with the progress of his disciples in apprehending spiritual conceptions. Hence in the later suras we observe a merging of the material in the spiritual, of the body in the soul (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:200-1).

His above-mentioned thought has, indeed, something to do with what is called the beatific vision of the Almighty (ru’yat Allāh). But like his description of paradise and hell, in this case, he does not explain his opinion strictly, either. He only says:
Without venturing to pass any opinion on these different notions, we may take this occasion to state our own belief with regard to the Koranic conception of future rewards and punishments (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:200).

His Thought on Revelation and Reason

The last, but not least, important thing to know about Amīr ‘Alī is his opinion on the revelation, its nature as well as that on how the process of revelation itself really took place. Amīr ‘Alī interprets Muhammad’s prophetic experience in the cave of Hirā as an ecstatic mystical experience as that of Sufi leaders, after being deep in communion (al tahannuth) with the Almighty in the cave (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:16).

Amīr ‘Alī told the story of Muhammad’s solitude in the cave at full length, after he was annoyed to learn the life of his community which was far away from God’s guidance until he finally received revelation or what he called mental vision (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:16 ff.). By interpreting revelation as mental vision, which looks like self communion in God, leads Amīr ‘Alī to think that Muhammad’s experience of solitude is really the same as that or Jesus who ran away from his community while, at the same time, contemplating somewhere in the hope that there he would have heard the voice of the Almighty (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:16 ff.).

According to Anis Ahmad, he apparently fails to see that Jesus’ vision is his wilderness was of devil, while the Prophet saw Gabriel who brought with him the message sent by Allah. In addition, Anis Ahmad also thinks hat such a generalization is perhaps caused by the influence of tradition of West liberal philosophical thought upon Amīr ‘Alī, so that in many of his interpretations of Islam there are similarities as that of Western orientalists (Anis Ahmad, 1980:116-7)

He takes an example of Amīr ‘Alī’s interpretation of revelation as “the over-wrought mind” (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:16) which resembles the statement of orientalist Margoliouth in his introduction to J. M. Rodwell’s translation of the Qur’an, when he speaks about Muhammad’s psychology that "his chief objects of knowledge are floating stories and tradition largely picked up from hearsay, and his over-wrought mind in his only teacher" (Anis Ahmad, 1980:117).
It is his understanding of the nature of revelation that many people regard him as tending to think that Qur’anic teachings on legal, moral, economical, social as well as political spheres are created by Muhammad himself. And it is true that he is of the same opinion as that or Margoliouth in that the Prophet was considerably influenced by local Arabian folklores which are eventually included in his teachings (Anis Ahmad, 1980:117-8).

And thus conclusion is quite the same as Amīr ‘Alī’s own statement:
Mohamed, when promulgated his faith and his laws, found these traditions current among his people: he took them up and adopted them as the lever for raising the Arabs and surrounding nations (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:lxxi).

In addition to the above-mentioned, it is also interesting to know about his opinion on how the revelation should be interpreted. According to him, the present stagnation of the Muslim communities is principally due to the fact that the right of exercising private judgment (ijtihād) ceased with the ninth-century legists, and it is sinful to do such a judgment today. According to them, in order to become a good follower of orthodox Islam it is enough for him to follow one of the existing schools. Such a case is not only found in the Sunnite but also Shi‘ite wings. Amīr ‘Alī maintained that Muhammad himself gave a high position to human reason, but our schoolmen and their servile followers have made its exercise a sin and a crime (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:183-4).
According to Amīr ‘Alī, there is a necessity for Islamic reformation and, as that in Christianity, it must be initiated with enlightenment. And before there can be a renovation of religious life, the mind must first escape from the bondage of what he calls literal interpretation and the doctrine of “conformity.” (Ameer ‘Alī, 1978:183-4).

It is obvious, therefore, that, as any other modern Muslim thinkers, he claims for the right of ijtihād and to interpret Islam rationally. Not only does he oppose traditional thought in the Sunni wing but also in the Shi‘ite, to which he also belongs. Some more important things about him and his thought are of course very interesting to know. He is a great man with a great deal of ideas. And he is right to e one of our subjects to study further.***

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ameer ‘Alī, Syed. 1951. A Short History of the Saracens. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., reprint, 1998.
––––– 1978. The Spirit of Islam: A History of the Evolution and Ideals of Islam with a Life of the Prophet. Delhi: Idarah-i-Adabiyat-i-Delli, reprint, 1922.
––––– 1981. Islamic History & Culture. Delhi: Amar Prakashan.
Ahmad, Anis. 1980. “Two Approaches to Islamic History: A Critique od Shibli Nu‘mani’s and Syed Ameer Alī’s Interpretations of History.” Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation. Temple University, U.S.A.
Amīn, Ahmad. 1979. Zu‘amā’ al Islāh fī al ‘Asr al Hadīth. Qāhirah: Maktabah al Nahdah al Misriyyah.
Gibb, H. A. R. 1978. Modern Trends in Islam. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1947; reprint, New York: Octagon Books.
Harun Nasution. 1978. Pembaharuan dalam Islam: Sejarah Pemikiran dan Gerakan [Modernization in Islam: History of Thought and Movement]. Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 5th printing.
Singh, Attar. 1976. Socio-Cultural Impact of Islam on India. Chandigarh: Publication Bureau, Panjab University, first edition.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. 1979. Modern Islam in India: A Social Analysis. New Delhi: Usha Publications, second revised edition. Reprint, 1946.
Voll, John Obert. 1982. Islam: Continuity and Change in the Modern World. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, Inc.