Seyyed Hossein Nasr on Modernism: a Critical Study

SEYYED HOSSEIN NASR ON MODERNISM: A CRITICAL STUDY

THESIS

SUBMITTED TO ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Philosophy IN PHILOSOPHY

NASIR AHMAD SHAH

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: PROF. LATIF HUSSAIN SHAH KAZMI (Professor & Chairperson)

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH (INDIA)-202002 2019

Department Of Philosophy Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

I, Nasir Ahmad Shah, Department of Philosophy certify that the work embodied in this Ph.D. thesis is my own bonafide work carried out by me under the supervision of Prof. Latif Hussain Shah Kazmi at Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. The matter embodied in this Ph.D. thesis has not been submitted for the award of any other degree.

I declare that I have faithfully acknowledged, given credit to and referred to the researchers wherever their works have been cited in the text and the body of the thesis. I further certify that I have not wilfully lifted up some other’s work, para, text, data, result, etc., reported in the journals, books, magazines, reports, dissertations, theses, etc., or available at websites and included them in this Ph.D. thesis and cited as my own work.

Date:______Signature of the Candidate Nasir Ahmad Shah …………………………………………………………………………………

CERTIFICATE FROM THE SUPERVISOR This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best of my knowledge.

Signature of the Chairman with Seal Prof. Latif Hussain Shah Kazmi Designation: (Professor) Department of Philosophy, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh

Department Of Philosophy Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh

COURSE/COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION/ PRE-SUBMISSION SEMINAR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. Nasir Ahmad Shah, Department of Philosophy has satisfactorily completed the Course Work/ Comprehensive Examination and Pre-Submission Seminar requirement which is part of his Ph.D. programme.

Prof. Latīf Hussaīn Shah Kāzmī

Signature of the Chairman with Seal

Date: ______

Department Of Philosophy Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh

Title of the Thesis

“Seyyed Hossein Nasr on Modernism: A Critical Study”

Candidate’s Name: NASIR AHMAD SHAH

The undersigned hereby assigns to the Aligarh Muslim

University, Aligarh copyright that may exist in and for the above thesis submitted for the award of the Ph.D. degree.

Signature of the Candidate

Note: However, the author may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce material extracted verbatim from the thesis or derivative of the thesis for author’s personal use provide that the source and the University’s copyright notice are indicated. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis owes much to the help and contributions of various great people. It would not have been possible without the support and attention of them. Their unconditional support has enabled me to reach this point of academic journey. It would be impossible to thank them all in this limited space. First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my thesis supervisor Prof. Latif Hussain S. Kazmi. Sincere thanks are due to him, who has been so generous with his time and advice, showing me endless patience and understanding, and give me compassionate encouragement at critical points during my period of study. I feel immense pleasure to express my gratitude for his kindness. This thesis also deserves to acknowledge Prof. Sanaullah Mir, whose guidance and encouragement helps me to complete this thesis. I would like to extend sincere thanks to him. I would also like to express my special appreciation to all the teachers of my life and especially to the Department of Philosophy A.M.U. Aligarh. I am also grateful for the non- teaching staff of the Department. My deep gratitude goes to my family especially to my respected Mother Shahmala Beigum, for whom this thesis and my words fell short to acknowledge, without whose generous love and support it would have been impossible for me to come to this stage of my career. Her support for my life is not only as a Mother but Father as well. I would like to thank my elder sisters Mrs. Nayeema, Parveena and Hafeeza, who has always supported me and understood my commitment towards my studies. Thank you for providing me strongest foundation for accomplishing this study. My deep gratitude goes to the men who mentored me through the years Mr. Ab. Majeed Bhat, Mohd. Ashrif Mir and Mohd Shafi Lone, for unwilling love and endless sacrifice in their own special ways, not only with regard to this special task but also with regard to the whole process of my study. They pushed me harder than I thought I could be pushed, but they also sheltered me, when I needed to be sheltered. To all of them, I owe my apology for the loss of important moments of intimate togetherness due to my preoccupation with finishing this study.

i My special thanks deserve to my dearest friend Suhail-ul-Rahman Lone, who very kindly helped in the editing and proof reading of my thesis, and his immense guidance, suggestions and encouragement make it successful. I would also like to thank Dr. Jan Mohammad Lone, who helped me in correcting and finalizing my thesis. Many thanks to Mr. Farooq Ahmad Mir, whose discussion and queries on Sufism develop in me the philosophical insight. My gratitude goes to both of them for their help in finalizing this thesis. My gratitude also goes to Mr. Imtiyaz Ahmad Dar and Dr. Mudasir Hussain Bhat for their spiritual encouragement, suggestions and guidance. Thank you for supporting me during the tough times. During my studies, I have been blessed with a friendly and cheerful group of colleagues, who helped me directly or indirectly in completing this project. I would like to thank them all; Dr. Sarim Abbas, Mr. Mohd. Rashid, Mr. Abid Khan, Mr. Ashaduzzaman Khan, Mr. Mujahidul-Haque, Mr. Bilal Dada, Dr. Sakina Khazir, Mr. Nazakat Hussain, Mr. Ajaz Ahmad, Mr. Mansoor Alam, and Mr. Adil Ahmad. I am also grateful for other research colleagues who helped and nourish my thinking during doctoral journey as human as possible. I would like to thank Mr. Javid Ahmad Ahanger, Mr. Amir Sultan Lone, Mr. Showkat Ahmad Hajam, Dr. Ishfaq Ahmad Yatoo, Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Sheikh, Mr. Showkat Ahmad Mandloo Dr. Mukthar Ahmad Bhat, Dr. Adil Ahmad Dar, Mr. Sajad Ahmad Dar, Mr. Umer Bashir, and Mr. Muzzafar bin Aziz. At last but not least, I would like to express my deepest, biggest gratitude to Aligarh Muslim University for providing me all necessary facilities for this study. My thanks are due to Maulana Azad Library, its staff and all its resources. I am also thankful for ICPR and UGC for their Financial Support for completion of this thesis.

ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH NASIR AHMAD SHAH

SEYYED HOSSEIN NASR ON MODERNISM: A CRITICAL STUDY

ABSTRACT

Submitted to the Aligarh Muslim University, for the Award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Philosophy

Nasir Ahmad Shah

Under The Supervision of

Prof. Latīf Hussaīn Shah Kāzmī (Professor & Chairperson)

Department of Philosophy Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh-202002 (India) 2019 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate the reactions of Seyyed Hossein Nasr to Modernity. This study first examines the traditionalists through which Nasr got insights to return back from modern science to traditional science. In this connection, along with Nasr’s traditional journey several traditionalists are discussed, who made a large platform for Nasr to emerge as a strong figure in the contemporary times particularly in the Islamic field. The whole academia of Nasr is discussed and evaluated in relation with Modernity/Postmodernity and Tradition. All works of Nasr whether in written or in lecture form are incorporated in this thesis to show how Nasr’s theological methodology is engaged to criticize Modernity. In this manner, at the outset of the thesis Modernism, its emergence, causes and consequences are defined from the perspective of philosophy. However, there are some reflections on the sociological point of view, but the main aim of the thesis is to show the philosophical claims of Nasr regarding Modernism. The principle aim of the thesis is that it is more supportive and affirmative than critical.

In order to organize the discussion, the present thesis is divided in five chapters excluding Bibliography.

 Chapter I: Introduction  Chapter II: Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s Approach to Modernism  Chapter III: Islam, Other Traditions and the Modern World  Chapter IV: Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s Critique of Modernism  Chapter V: Critical Evaluation  Bibliography

Chapter-I:

The subject of this chapter is first to provide a biographical sketch of Nasr in order to show his affinities with traditional religious philosophies and association with traditional philosophers. The origin of Nasr’s interest in

[i] perennial philosophy especially in esoterism and gnosis has been discussed and a brief account of his works ranging from Tradition, Ecology, Man-Nature relationship, Spirituality and religious plurality to interfaith dialogue are analyzed.

Chapter-II:

At the outset of this chapter a historical background of the whole movement (Modernism) is discussed; where it arose, what was the need and how it happened. The Enlightenment period is examined along with Nasr and contemporary sociological thinkers and modern western philosophers. The chapter also includes the vision of Nasr regarding traditional metaphysics and pre-Socratic philosophers and how modern western philosophy and science served as a background for the modernism. More broadly, this thesis shows how Nasr explains modern western philosophy and science becoming the predominant world-view with a view to determining the relation of man and nature scientifically and philosophically other than ontological. It also put some reflection on how modern humans gradually lost faith on celestial realities and thus made human reason and perception as a criterion for reality. Next, with the help of Nasr’s theological methodology modern and postmodern ideologies are criticized for replacing the theocentric ideology, and replacing God from the centre of the universe and put man at that place and assume that ‘man is a measure of all things.’

Chapter-III:

This chapter explores Nasr’s perspective on Islamic Sufi tradition, Christian, Hindu and Buddhistic traditions and a comparison between these traditions with the modern science so as to differentiate how traditions were more harmonious with nature then modernity. It is in this manner first Tradition is defined and debated from all the traditionalistic perspectives and then it is equated with Nasr’s ideology. Major arguments of Nasr’s philosophy revolve

[ii] around Islamic tradition particularly in the Sufi ways. This chapter extensively discusses Sufism from the perspective of Nasr and other scholars and is an attempt to trace the roots of Sufism. This thesis clearly describes Nasr’s standpoint; that Sufism is the only way that can remove the frustration of modern humans produced by modern science. Further, Sufism is related to other traditions and Islamic mystic scholars to show its importance and its pluralistic nature. In the same line a critical assessment of Nasr’s arguments are made on the basis of modern theologians regarding religious pluralism and religious fundamentalism, and at the end of the chapter it has been discussed that Nasr does not reject modernity. What he rejects is its authoritarian claim and the affirmation that the sensorial knowledge is the only knowledge. It is an obvious fact that Nasr succeeded in highlighting the faults of modernism from the traditionalistic perspective, but he forgot to acknowledge its benefits.

Chapter-IV:

This chapter discusses Nasr’s critique of Modernism with reference to environmental crisis. For Nasr, the primary responsibility for the environmental crisis lies on the scientific reductionisms and all this revolves around western philosophies. In this chapter it is discussed that Nasr’s critique of modernism focuses on the fact that western advanced modern scientific paradigm-shift and gave up religious world-views with a view to achieving economic prosperity and political power. All things were explained by scientific principles, it neglected the religious order of nature and tried to command over nature due to which it oppresses it and destroys its natural balance. In this sense Nasr talks about that Man-Nature relationship has lost its original form as it was seen before modernity. The chapter is fully devoted to his eco-philosophy and the solutions to the environmental crisis through religious sense. Sufi ways of understanding Nature is one of the core doctrines which are involved in his eco-philosophy. For him, Quran, Hadith and Sharī’ah are the fundamental sources of inspiration for the humans to overcome the environmental crisis.

[iii] This chapter includes explicitly Nasr’s religious perspectives including Hinduism and Buddhism about Nature and the Environment.

Chapter-V:

The last chapter is the critical analysis of the whole arguments of Nasr’s thesis on tradition and modernity. It involves criticism of Modern scientific theories like Darwinian Theory of evolution, Sigmund Freud and Jungian Psychology and all allied ideologies of modernity and side by side some Muslim modernist thinkers. Apart from this the chapter includes grounds on which he rejects modern epistemology and rationality and on the other hand accepts traditional epistemology, on grounds of Scripture and revelation. This thesis also shows the profound differences exist in Nasr and Islamic Traditionalists regarding how to address the influence of modernity.

More broadly, the present thesis shows how Nasr defines and criticizes Modernity and Postmodernity and how he defends of his own and other Traditions in comparison to Modernity. His main argument is that Modernity led humanity away from reliance upon Divine revelation, and the only way for humans is to move back to the Divine revelation by focusing on the esoteric aspects of their religions.

[iv] CONTENTS

Acknowledgement…………………………………………………..….. i-ii

CHAPTER-I  Introduction…….……………………………………………… 01-20 1.1 Seyyed Hossein Nasr: A Biographical Sketch……………………… 01-02 1.2 Influencing Circle…………………………………………………… 03-07 1.3 Selected Works of Seyyed Hossein Nasr…………………………… 07-11 1.4 General Outline of the Thesis………………………………………… 11-17 1.5 Research Questions…………………………………………………… 18

CHAPTER-II  Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s Approach to Modernism……….….… 21-55 2.1 Historical Background……………………………………………….. 21-26 2.2 Enlightenment: The Age of Reason…………………………………. 26-28 2.3 Postmodernists’ Critique to Modernity……………………………... 28-31 2.4 Contemporary Theorists…………………………………………….. 31-36 2.5 Nasr’s Critique of Western Philosophy and Modern Science……… 36-44 2.6 In defiance of Tradition…………………………………………….. 44-47 2.7 Nasr’s Disagreement with Modern Science……………………… 48-51

CHAPTER-III  Islām, Other Traditions, and the Modern World ……….….. 56-92 3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………….. 56-57 3.2 Perennial Philosophy and its Influence on Nasr…………………….. 57-63 3.3 Islāmic Tradition……………………………………………………. 63-65 3.4 Ṣūfīsm ………………………………………………………………. 65-70 3.5 Nasr’s Conception of Spirituality……………………………………. 70-72 3.6 Religious Pluralism………………………………………………….. 72-76 3.7 Modern and Theological Critique of Religious Pluralism………… 76-77 3.8 Religious Fundamentalism………………………………………… 78-87 3.9 Conclusion…………………………………………………………. 87-88

CHAPTER-IV  Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s Critique of Modernism……………. 93-137 4.1 Environmental Crisis: An outcome of Modernism………………… 93-96 4.2 Man-Nature Relationship………………………………………… 96-100 4.3 Nasr’s Religious Solution to Environmental crisis………………. 101-114 4.4 How Nasr Understands Role of God in Nature?...... 114-122 4.5 Deconstruction of the Traditional Conception of God………… 122-124 4.6 Nasr’s Perspective about Christianity’s role on environmental crisis...... 125-128 4.7 Role of Modern Science in Desacralization of Nature……………. 128-131 4.8 Nasr’s Conception of Nature in Buddhism and Hinduism…...….. 131-133 4.9 Conclusion…………………………………………………...... 133-134

CHAPTER-V  Critical Evaluation………………………….………………… 138-161 5.1 Nasr’s Objection on Modern Epistemology……………………... 140-145 5.2 Critique of Islāmic Modernists…………………………………… 145-151 5.3 Difference(s) Between Nasr and Modernists…………………….. 151-155 5.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………… 155-159

 BIBLIOGRAPHY..………………………….…………….….. 162-180 1. General Books……………………………………………………. 162-168 2. Books by Seyyed Hossein Nasr …..…………………………….... 168-171 3. Articles by Seyyed Hossein Nasr ……….………….…………….. 171-177 4. General Articles…………………………………….…………….. 177-180 5. Websites, YouTube Lectures and Unpublished Sources……….... 180-181

Chapter-I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Seyyed Hossein Nasr: A Biographical Sketch

Seyyed Hossein Nasr was born in Iran in 1933. He is by Profession a University professor in the Department of Islamic Studies and Comparative Religion at the George Washington University, Washington D.C. He is widely recognized as an expert on Islamic Science and Spirituality and one of the most important Muslim intellectuals of our time. Nasr is the author of over forty books and hundreds of research articles and has delivered numerous lectures on topics ranging from Islamic Philosophy, Sufism, Islamic Science, Islamic Art and Architecture, [to] Environmental Crisis, Cosmology, Metaphysics, Modern Science, Philosophy, Persian Mysticism, Religious Pluralism and Modernism. He has played an influential role as a Philosopher, Theologian, a practicing Sufi mystic and a teacher, as well as a Traditionalist or Perennialist, and an advocate of interfaith dialogue and global ethics (W. C. Chittick 2007, ix-xiv) (The Seyyed Hossein Nasr Foundation 1996-2018).

He received his early education in Iran and was mostly influenced and educated by his father Seyyed Valiallah Nasr, an eminent Physician, educationist, philosopher of ethics with mastery on Arabic and Persian languages. After completing primary education, he went for further studies to America and continued till eighth grade in Peddie School in Hightstown, New Jersey. In 1950, Nasr began his undergraduate studies in physics at MIT because his interests were driven by the nature of physical reality and subsequently completed his honours degree in 1954. At the end of his first year of study, he participated in a group discussion with the famous philosopher Bertrand Russell who, when asked to remark on the nature of physics, answered, in Nasr's words, that

“physics did not concern itself with the nature of physical reality per se but with mathematical structures related to pointer readings” (Nasr 2001, 16). Russell's answer, along with his own growing unease with the implicit positivism of the atmosphere at MIT, led Nasr to seriously reconsider his chosen field of study. Subsequently, he went on a quest to look for a discipline which best suited his inclinations. Unable to make a choice between studying physics and switching over to history of science and philosophy, he continued to work in the same field until he completed his master degree in 1956. After earning his Master’s degree, he shifted his focus over to History of Science and engaged himself entirely to its study. Later, he wrote the doctoral thesis in the same field on the ‘Conceptions of Nature in Islamic Thought’ in 1958 at Harvard, which was later, published as An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrines (Nasr 2001, 29-30). The quest of traditional knowledge of a cosmological order led him to become an eminent scholar of major religions. He realized that modern physics could not provide ultimate knowledge of the physical world and this resulted in him moving him towards the “traditional cosmologies from the Pythagorean and Platonic, associated with the Timaeus, to Aristotelian physics, to the Samkhya in Hinduism, to Chinese philosophy of nature found in Taoism and Neo-Confucianism, and finally to Islam” (Nasr 2001, 30). After completing Ph.D at Harvard, he returned to Iran and worked as an Associate Professor of Philosophy and History of Science at the faculty of Letters of Tehran University. Besides teaching history of science, he also taught Aristotle and Plato, Islamic philosophy, and comparative Greek and Western Philosophy. Nasr also laid foundations of the Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy under the patronage of the Queen of Iran. This was intended as a school for the study and dissemination of traditional sciences, especially Islamic Philosophy. It attracted distinguished scholars in the field, both from the East and the West, such as Henry Corbin and Toshihiko Izutsu. After the Iranian Revolution in 1979, he had to leave the country and returned back to the United States. Since then, he

has held a position as a professor of Comparative Religion and Islamic studies at the George Washington University.

1.2 Influencing Circle

Nasr’s education was mainly influenced by his father and his traditional method of studying things. At the age of ten, he met greatest Persian scholars of the day and listened to the philosophical debates on Tradition, Modernism, Scientific Worldview, and Cosmology. At the same time, Nasr knew about the works of Western and Persian philosophers like Ibn Sina, Rumi, Descartes, Pascal, Voltaire, Kant, Hegel, and Karl Marx. He was encouraged by his parents to learn and memorize the poetry of Rumi, Hafiz, Firdawsi, Nizami and Sa̒di, and was also encouraged to study Sufism and History. He had participated for hours in meditating upon the spiritual and philosophical meaning of their poetry (Nasr 2001, 8). In his early academic career, he became well-versed in Persian literature, poetry, and art. From childhood Nasr was much interested and engaged in philosophical debates like causality, finitude and infinitude of space, etc. However, growing up in a religious family, his faith in religion remained firm.

Ananda K. Coomaraswamy and Guenon were among the most important personalities that turned into a guide for Nasr’s traditional journey. Coomaraswamy was Singhalese and was working in America as a historian of Eastern Art, Metaphysics and perennial philosopher like Rene Guenon, a French Metaphysician. Nasr did not meet Coomaraswamy during his presence in Cambridge but was later introduced by some of his students to the latter’s wife Dona Luisa Coomaraswamy. She later introduced Nasr to the works of Coomaraswamy, which according to Nasr expressed the richness of traditional philosophy and art. He became well-versed with the sources of his library in Indian art and symbolism as well as with Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, and Chinese religions.

It was the Italian-American philosopher and historian of science Giorgio de Santillana through whom he got influenced towards philosophy and art. Santillana, a Catholic intellectual, was a critic of the Western philosophy and science. Nasr took many courses with him and viewed through his critical eyes the thoughts of Descartes, Kant, Hegel as well as the founders of modern science, such as Galileo. Moreover, Nasr learned from him the Pythagorean philosophy, Platonic Dialogues, Aristotelian Metaphysics, Plotinus and medieval European Philosophy. Furthermore, Santillana introduced Nasr to Christian Philosophy and symbolism and Jacques Maritain and neo-Thomism. Nasr admitted later that Santillana’s greatest influence on his early education was related to Hinduism and his critique of modern Western thought. First, he introduced him to Rene Guenon’s An Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines and Man and His Becoming according to the Vedanta. It played an important role in the crystallization of Nasr’s thought in early life.

Nasr got connected with several European traditionalists who represented perennial philosophy and tradition at that time. Among them, the foremost metaphysician to influence Nasr was Frithjof Schuon. Titus Burckhardt swayed Nasr in the field of traditional cosmology and traditional art. Marco Pallis introduced Nasr to the metaphysics of Tibetan Buddhism, while Martin Lings, one of the most important figures of traditional Islam and Sufism in the West, and Nasr shared a close relationship for many decades. Huston Smith remains continuously in dialogue with Nasr on philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, and perennial philosophy. The last traditionalists on which Nasr emphasizes more are Rene Guenon and A.K. Coomaraswamy. Nasr has shown much gratitude to these personalities for building his intellectual and spiritual thought (Nasr 2001, 27).

Nasr has had a philosophical association with non-Persian intellectuals notably Henry Corbin and Toshihiko Izutsu. It is Corbin who introduced Nasr to many philosophical friends in France like Gabriel Marcel and Gaston Bachelard. He claims that Corbin is the first major philosopher in modern

Europe and has shared with him the interest in esoterism and gnosis both in Islamic Philosophy and Sufism. But Corbin opposed the traditionalist school of thought especially that of Guenon and appreciated the philosophy of Schuon. Nasr admitted that his association with Corbin played an important role in his philosophical life: he not only helped him to rediscover Islamic philosophical tradition but also comparative and Western philosophy. Similarly, Izutsu honed his knowledge about Buddhism (Nasr 2001, 48-52).

The quest for knowing about the Eastern traditions led him to travel a lot of countries either for the purpose of conferences or lectures. Once he visited India for the prestigious Azad Memorial Lecture in 1975 in Delhi, his lecture being later published as Western Science and Asian Cultures. The visit to India made him aware of Hindu and Muslim sages and their philosophies. On this occasion, he met the philosopher-president of India, S. Radhakrishnan, and other philosophers such as Surendranath Dasgupta, M. Mahadevan A. K. Saran, Murty and others. Among the Muslims, he came across Islamic philosophers and administrators like Zakir Husain, Mir Vahiduddin, and Humayun Kabir. Besides this, Nasr remained associated with several Muslim philosophers from Pakistan like Mian Muhammad Sharif, the editor-author of the two-volume book, A History of Muslim Philosophy, in which Nasr contributed essays on Suhrawardi (Nasr 2001, 56).

After extensive study of these traditionalists across the East and the West, the major philosophical themes were developed by Nasr in various dimensions such as Traditional Metaphysics and Cosmologies, Traditional Science of Nature in opposite to Modern Science of Nature, and the Islamic Science and Islamic philosophy including Sufism and Art. It is this philosophy that generated in Nasr the interest of environmental crisis on which a larger portion of this thesis is based. Although his writings have appeared in several languages, the majority of them are in English and Persian, and some in French and Arabic, like Islamic Philosophy, Science, Sufism and perennial philosophy

and critique of modernism. Further, he wrote on several personalities on Persian field like Mullā Sadra and Sadr al-Din Shirazi etc. (Nasr 2001, 34-35).

Among the numerous accolades, he has received throughout his long career, perhaps the most notable are the honours of being chosen as the prestigious Gifford Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh in 1981 and of being included in the Library of Living Philosophers in 2001. Huston Smith, the eminent scholar of world religions, has called him one of the major intellects of our day. While Keith Critchlow, the foremost scholar of sacred art and architecture in the world, has dubbed him the most important living philosopher on the planet today. In addition to being the first Muslim and Islamic intellectual to address the Environmental Crisis, Nasr is also the first person ever to write extensively about the philosophical and religious dimension of the crisis. By the same token, he was also the first person to lay out a comprehensive, far-reaching religious response that goes beyond proposing ethical measures. As the foremost living representative of the perennial school of philosophy. Nasr has given the most extensive and detailed response to the environmental crisis out of all other Perennialists as yet. Embedded in his environmentalism is a call for the revival of religiously purposeful lifestyles across the world as alternatives to the technology and economic interest driven modern lifestyles, which, he believes, are behind the ecological/environmental crisis. This ecumenical aspect of Nasr's vision is a reflection, as we will see of both the school of perennial philosophy and of the inner dimension of Islam.

He is referred to under the several titles like Islamic Historian, Islamic Environmentalist, Eco-activist and Eco-psychologist and finally the Sufi in the present time. He is cited in number of subject’s especially Comparative Religion and Islamic Studies across the globe, and many of the thinkers referred him the father of Muslim environmentalist. Major of his works he has presented are in the form of lectures or seminars either in the US or outside the country. His main important issue is religion, especially the spiritual aspect

Modernity, Western Philosophy and its elements such as Environmental Crisis. He had given lectures in several countries and in the US for general public to overcome the muddled view of Islam. His mystical and spiritual teachings earned him a worldwide following. He influenced a vast network of both Muslims and non-Muslims among them are Philosophers of religion, Theologians, Traditionalists, Environmentalists, Interfaith Groups and finally, Sufis.

1.3 Selected Works of Seyyed Hossein Nasr

Nasr has written voluminously in different languages, across disciplinary boundaries. His most cited books, articles and lectures covering the topics of Philosophy, Science, Metaphysics, Traditional Islamic Cosmology, Theology Sufism Islamic Art, Architecture, Religious Pluralism and Modernism. Among his most cited books are: Traditional Islam in the Modern World (1987), Later he published it in extended form as Islam in the Modern World: Challenged by the West, Threatened by Fundamentalism, Keeping Faith with Tradition (2010). This book gives authentic and comprehensive summary of the Traditional Islam. In the prologue of the book Nasr provides us with a rich and rigorous definition of Traditional Islam. He broadly discussed the principles of Islam and the doctrine of Unity (al-Tawhid), the Qur’ān and Sunnah of the Prophet of Islam, including the canonical books of Hadith, the Shari̒ah or Divine Law and classical schools of jurisprudence (fiqh) and theology (kalam), the various manifestations of Islamic Spirituality, including Sufism (tasawwuf), Islamic Philosophy (falsafa/ hikmah), Islamic Art and Architecture. It also deliberates on several philosophers like Ghazzali and Mullā Sadra (Nasr, 2010, 14).

His other important works came in the form of a lecture series which he delivered in the University of Chicago in 1966 under the title The Encounter of Man and Nature. This was later published under the title Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man (1990). It is a significant source that outlines Nasr’s understanding of the environmental crisis. In it, he outlines his major

opinions on the environmental crisis. His interest in the environment led him to deliver the Cadbury Lectures at the University of Birmingham in Britain, which later got published as Religion and the Order of Nature (1996). These books extensively discuss the role played by Western Philosophy and are the main texts concerned with the environment and nature. After all the experience in Traditional Cosmology of Religions, he decided to write a separate volume on Islamic Science, which was published in 1968 by Harvard and New American Library as Science and Civilisation in Islam. It is the first book in the English language that covers the salient aspects of Islamic Science and civilization and its intellectual tradition contributed by the early Muslim scholars. However, this book faced much criticism both from the western and Muslim scholars who were the subscribers of positivistic philosophy. Yet, this work is continuously cited and read extensively in the West and Muslim world. Its translations are found in several languages: Urdu, Persian, French, and Italian (Nasr 2001, xiii).

Nasr’s Traditional philosophy and the criticism of modern science and technology are compiled in these books: Islam and the Plight of Modern Man (2001), An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrines (1993), Ideals and Realities of Islam (2000), Need for a Sacred Science (2005), and A Young Muslim Guide to the Modern World (2003). His recent books, The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity (2004) and The Garden of Truth: The Vision and Promise of Sufism, Islam’s Mystical Tradition (2007). They reflect a positive image of Sufism and Islam in the West. This thesis deals with these books in detail.

William Chittick has edited a book, The Essential Seyyed Hossein Nasr. It examines Nasr’s understanding of Nature and the existential relationship that Nature has with humans and with God. It discusses Nasr’s traditionalist perspective of understanding religion in contemporary life, the traditionalist perspective to Islam and its relevance to spiritual and intellectual life, and deals with themes of the traditionalist school such as Metaphysics, Cosmology, Spiritual Psychology, Art, Pre-modern Science, and limitation of Modern

Science (Chittick 2007, xiv). In the foreword of this book, which is written by Huston Smith, one gets a sense of how prominent Nasr is in the environmental ethics sphere. Smith commends Chittick for including Nasr’s, “Religion and the Environmental Crisis,” because he reminds the reader that “we are standing on a trap door which, if we are not very careful, could open beneath our feet and eliminate humanity, and possibly all life, from the face of our planet” (Chittick 2007, vii).

Besides these books, Nasr has edited several encyclopaedias, such as Islamic Spirituality: Foundations (2008), (Nasr 2008) and Islamic Spirituality: Manifestations (Nasr 1991). The chapters of the first book have been contributed by several authors and mostly discuss Sufism and Islamic Spirituality. The topics are mainly related to the roots of Sufism and the inner dimension of Islam and address several conceptions like the concept of God, Cosmos, and humans. The other volume, Islamic Spirituality: Manifestations, contains Nasr’s thought regarding Sacred Knowledge, art and literature of early Sufis. Furthermore, Nasr’s Gifford Lectures are regarded as one of the highest tributes to the field of comparative religion. He compiled these lectures in the form of a book entitled Knowledge and the Sacred (Nasr, 1989). Nasr explains how one comes to know the ultimate reality, that is, God. In this book, he describes science as a very limited endeavour that can take a person only so far in understanding the ultimate reality. In a sense, all one can know is knowledge gained through the scientific method. Only through “tradition” passed down through religions and cultures is one able to ascertain the truth of the ultimate reality. Yet, the human intellect has been reduced in modern times to mere rationality, no longer enabling it to be connected as clearly to the Ultimate Reality and to know the sacred truth. In this text, Nasr distinguishes traditional and modern man: for him, the modern man sets himself up to be the master and creator of the world, giving himself the role of divinity. However, on the other side, the traditional man sees the world as an expression of the Divine (Brooks 2008, 47). For Nasr, traditional man uses the world as a means to know the

Ultimate Reality. This text shows the pluralistic character in Nasr’s thought; it spurs a debate between the traditional and the modern man.

All of his works encompass the arguments regarding his eco-philosophy and ecological message, which he presents in the opening lines of Religion and the Order of Nature; he expresses the pain of Nature and the role of religion to carry out a comparative study for its solution:

The Earth is bleeding from wounds inflicted upon it by a humanity no longer in harmony with Heaven and therefore in constant strife with the terrestrial environment. The world of nature is being desecrated and destroyed in an unprecedented manner globally by both those who secularized the world about them and developed a science and technology capable of destroying nature on an unimaginable scale and by those who still live within a religious universe, even if the mode of destruction of the order of nature by the two groups is both quantitatively and qualitatively different.…

The environmental crisis now encompasses the entire Earth. Strangely enough, although the destruction of the sacred quality of nature by modern man dominated by a secularist perspective is entirely responsible for this catastrophe, the vast majority of the human species … still lives within a worldview dominated by religion. The role of religion in the solution of the existing crisis between man and nature is therefore crucial …

A need exists to develop a path across religious frontiers without destroying the significance of religion itself and to carry out a comparative study of the “Earths” of various religions (Nasr 1996, 03).

The above statement contains all the elements that mark his argument: an almost compassionate sense of urgency about the severity of the environmental crisis. ‘the earth is bleeding’; the lack of ‘harmony with Heaven’ as the true nature of the crisis; science and technology developed by a secularized humanity as the main causes and also, the crucial role of religion as a solution

to the crisis i.e. traditional knowledge about ‘nature’, comparative study of the earth. Secular modernity is contrasted to traditional religious cosmology and metaphysics as the cause and solution to the crisis, respectively.

A formidable grasp of both Modern Scientific Principles and Traditional Islamic Cosmology allow Nasr to stake out a very distinctive path in his defense of the traditional Islamic legacy against the onslaught of modernity. A pioneer in the Islamic critique of scientism, Nasr is also one of the first thinkers to recognize the threat to the environment arising out of the modern worldview. By drawing upon the internal Western critique in the philosophy and history of science, and connecting it to the Islamic criticism of materialism and secularism, Nasr emerges as a radical critic of modernity (Zaidi 2007, 119). The whole of his work shows an attempt to create a reaction against modernity. He enormously criticizes a modern man for relying too much on scientific knowledge and not enough upon traditional sacred knowledge. For him, modern science has created an epistemic distance between humanity and the Ultimate Reality. He believes that religions are merely manifestations of the Ultimate Reality. Therefore, if humans return to the traditions of their religion, they can experience sacred knowledge, which will eventually lead them back to the Ultimate Reality.

The present thesis is aimed at exploring the diverse manner in which religious traditions view nature and construct symbol systems and ritual practices relating humans to ‘Nature.’ It resulted in the World Religions and Ecology-series on Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, Indigenous and Shinto. Nasr contributed to the 1998 conference about Islamic or Muslim perspectives of the ecological issues.

1.4 General Outline of the Thesis

This thesis is an attempt to analyse and contextualize Nasr’s religious philosophy. The main focus of the thesis is to analyse the central aspect of his thoughts regarding modernity and religion. It explores the views of several

philosophers and sociologists vis-à-vis modernity and religion. Modernity is discussed and defined with regards to conception of thinkers like Descartes, scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Newton, and sociological thinkers like Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg Simmel, Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck, and Zygmunt Bauman. Main stress is laid upon the philosophical thought from the inception of modernity, particularly from Western Philosophy and Science. The whole background of the modernistic movement is discussed with reference to Nasr and all the major religions. The factors and tendencies before and after the enlightenment are highlighted according to these thinkers. The modernistic ideologies and theories are compared and contrasted with the traditional ones. Also, an emphasis is laid on the study of Rationalism, Empiricism, Capitalism, Democracy, Urbanization, and the associated ideologies of Modernity. All these ideas are related to the thought of Nasr, and his criticism is explained. The thesis highlights Nasr’s opposition to Modern Science, Philosophy, Economic, Politics, Globalization, Secularization, and all the modern institutions. Nasr has all these things related to Religion, particularly with Eastern religion such as Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. The whole contrast is drawn with these religions and the eastern philosophy. Apart from Nasr’s opposition to modernism, the importance of traditional philosophy, the meaning of Symbolism, traditional cosmology, and traditional conception of Nature has been taken up.

The thesis has vastly described Nasr’s conception of tradition, particularly Islamic tradition on which he has firm faith, and a brief description is drawn on perennialist scholars who influenced and motivated Nasr to adopt traditional philosophy. Traditionalists like Rene Guenon, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Frithjof Schuon, Titus Burckhardt, Martin Lings, etc. are the leading figures who shape Nasr’s traditional metaphysics and cosmology (Nasr 2004, 108). Nasr fully involved in the writings of these perennialists and describe tradition in such a way that it opposes several principles of modernism. Tradition for him is a transmission of all knowledge, practice, laws, and principles, whether written or in oral forms generation to generation

(Nasr 1989, 64). He differentiates this tradition from the concept of the modern tradition. For him, tradition has a Divine source and is unchanged from time to time; it is absolute, endless, and contains social structure and practices. The important quality that Nasr adopted is that he accepts all the traditions of major religions that bring insight into him. Here, Nasr is more advocator of Guenon and Schuon traditional philosophy who believes tradition is the same everywhere and at every point of time. Therefore, Nasr claims tradition is synonymous with perennial philosophy and is eternal, universal, and immutable (Oldmeadow 2010, 69). He believes that it is a tradition which is truth or principle of a Divine origin revealed or concealed to humanity. It binds humans to the Creator and is considered as a primordial truth that is finding in the very fabric of the universe, and does not need any proof for validation; it is self-validated. All these vocabularies used by Nasr and other traditionalists are discussed in the thesis. The whole Traditional Philosophy is contrasted with Modern Philosophy and is used as a movement of resistance to modernization.

The thesis, after discussing the general conception of the Tradition, has broadly discussed the Islamic Tradition, particularly the Sufi Tradition with reference to Nasr and other Sufis such as Rumi. Nasr has immensely stressed on the teachings of the Qur’ān and the Prophets in the form of Al-Hadith and Al-Sunnah. Here Nasr’s ideology is very clear that he has supported Islamic Tradition (Sufi Tradition), which he calls the living practice for the whole of humanity. Tradition has been explained as a tree deeply rooted in Divine revelation and its branches grown in different seasons and at different times (Nasr 2010, 183).

The thesis has vastly described the conception of Sufism its sources, way, and practice that lead modern man out of the crisis which he is facing. Nasr also attempted to bring integration between different traditions through several approaches like Sufi Saints and poets like Rumi, Bastami, Hallaj, Mulla Sadra and Ibn Arabi, etc. A complete religious philosophy has been traced by Nasr to express in the Western audience.

Further, Nasr has drawn light on Spirituality, and for him, it varies from religion to religion. His approach to Spirituality is little different than others, but his main emphasis is on the basic sources of Islam like the Qur’ān, Hadith, and Sunnah. So for as Nasr is concerned, Sufism and Spirituality as the inner dimension of Islam is only for the purpose of binding the connection with the Divine and for self-purification of both ‘heart’ and ‘soul.’ In this sense, the notion of Sufism and Spirituality is viewed psychologically and is performed as it is directed, for Nasr it can not only be studied, it is to be lived (Nasr 2010, 166-167). Nasr looks Spirituality as a way which leads humans to purify themselves from all the evils of modernity and can bring in them a love for Nature. Sufism here we see is the only possible way for Nasr to overcome the present crisis by practicing it through Sufi methods.

Several Muslim scholars did not agree with the Sufi ways of life, for only emphasizing the internal qualities of Islam and neglecting the external rituals. Sufis counter the claim of modern scholars of Islam with blaming that they itself only focus on the external (dhair) aspects of Islam, forgetting the inner (batin) dimension. The differences are shown clearly in these scholars as to how they interpret the Islamic sources, but the important point in Sufis which is quite essential for the present crisis is that they are more pluralistic in nature than others. Similarly, Nasr has derived his thought from the Sufis about the pluralism and multiplicity of religions. He talks about the Primordial Traditions, which for him always was and is the truth. His belief all religions have a Divine source which is esoterically same but exoterically different. The thesis has discussed the Islamic pluralism with reference to Nasr and other contemporary scholars. Theological critique of religious pluralism of both Hinduism and Islam is also discussed in brief.

The important issue which Nasr highlights in his religious philosophy is fundamentalism. This thesis includes the main arguments of his thought regarding fundamentalism. Nasr traces the roots of fundamentalism from the West, and for him, religious fundamentalism was first used for radical

Christians and now for Muslims. According to Nasr, fundamentalist or radical are the common terms which are used for those people who oppose Westernisation and modernisation and also for those who impose religion forcefully. Nasr has opposed all the religious movements of Islam which have occurred during modernistic age. He opposes Wahhabism, Deoband School of India, and the rigidity of Jamat-i-Islami (Nasr 1994, 12). He perceives all these movements as one and the same thing and believes that these are against traditional Islam. They tried to revive Islam either in favour of Modernism or against it; all of these were politically involved and operated as politico- religious movements. He referred to them as fundamentalist and counter- traditionalist (Nasr 1994, 13). He observed some similarities in them with traditional Islam but considered them responsible for embracing modernism. Hence, their ideology is opposed to Sufism, Islamic Art, and philosophy. The thesis has elaborated both sides of these traditions, including those of Secularists. In this thesis, Nasr’s understanding of the themes of tradition is contrasted with his ideas on modernism and modern philosophy.

This thesis is basically concerned with Nasr’s viewpoint on Man-Nature relationship. Modernity, for Nasr, is problematic; it has created troubles in the most essential relationship that governs the world. With the advent of modernity, the harmony has been lost. For Nasr, Man-Nature relationship is not seen the way the present-day Western Science and Philosophy sees it. These philosophies which emerged after the enlightenment period from the West are responsible for the crisis. The Man-Nature crisis is described as a self-made crisis and an ecological crisis in Nasr’s thought. Everyone, irrespective of his or her affiliations, is responsible for the problem. This whole traditional criticism against modernism from the ecological perspective is a strong contribution by Nasr.

While criticizing modernism, Nasr offers a kind of solution to the present crisis based on religions. He observes that modern science cannot provide further solutions to the environmental problem. A further investigation,

by modern science, of things necessary for finding a solution, will further destroy the Nature, instead of solving anything. So, in this sense, if we need a holistic solution for the environment, then it only comes from the religions. Nasr appeals modern man to rediscover all the traditions and knowledge related to ‘cosmos’ and ‘nature.’ Nasr thinks it will help modern man to develop a consciousness about Nature and will rediscover and re-establish the cosmic harmony.

The basic theme of Nasr’s Islamic thought is discussed for the solution of the crisis. He has mainly focused on the three major sources of Islam, that is, the Qur’ān, Hadith and Sharíah. These Islamic sources he believes to be the motivating forces that will redirect Muslims to take care of Nature. He opines that in Islam, Nature is considered as the sign (āyāt) of God. If ‘Nature’ is destroyed simply, we are destroying the image of God. Nasr metaphorically draws the image of God within the creatures of the universe, and he looks in this creature the sign of God (āyāt Allah). In this sense, he talks about all these holy Islamic scriptures, which will work as a strong ethical body for Muslims. With the references to these three Islamic sources, Nasr stresses that they will help humans to control the environmental crisis if it is practiced properly. Thus, he promotes environmental ethics, which are God-centric and theocentric.

Similarly, he appeals to all other religious people to promote traditional knowledge for the ‘Nature.’ Nasr addresses Christians to restore their tradition and formulate dialogue with the Eastern religions. When this dialogue happens, he says, it will reconstruct the traditional Christian doctrine. For Buddhism and Hinduism, he also expresses concern for their role in the environment. These religions have shown better enthusiasm than Christianity. They have treated ‘Nature’ and Earth as sacred. All the Hindu scriptures viz., Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and the Great epics of Mahabharata and Gita have emphasized protection and preservation of the environment. They, in one form or the other, have advocated that God, the supreme power, has created this world with five basic components—space, water, air, fire, and earth. Man (Purusha) is

considered as an integral part of nature itself and linked to the rest of the creation of indissoluble spiritual and psychological bonds. He is to live in harmony with other plant and animal species and not to wield control over them. In consonance, he has worshipped the sun, rivers, plants (Tulsi, Peepal, Khejari, and Barghed, etc.) and animals (cow, Ox, Snake and Elephant, Monkey, etc.). All the scriptures of Hindu tradition place a strong emphasis on the notion that God’s grace can be received by not killing the creatures or harming His creation. In this sense, Hinduism, like other religions, teaches humans to protect nature; they treat nature as a God-given gift and perceive the earth as a sacred mother (Bishnoi 2002).

The thesis broadly discusses the theological arguments of Nasr regarding the environment and other crisis. Nasr has not only discussed these issues but also has opposed modern epistemology. He criticizes the modernistic way of investigating things and their totalitarian claim. He sees it more threatening to the traditional way of knowing things. The basic solutions, which he recommends for modern Muslims, is the reconstruction of Tawhid which, he asserts, can rebuild the bond between humans and the Divine. At the end of the thesis, Nasr’s criticism of Islamic fundamentalists, who on many occasions try to reform Islam in conformation with contemporary times and modern science, is critically evaluated. His arguments regarding traditional education and all other things are discussed in relation to modernism.

The theories which Nasr questioned and criticized include Darwinian Theory of evolution, Freudian and Jungian Psychology and those who subscribe to them. However, he felt that Muslims are not much influenced by these theories but have, in some sense, affected few minds and souls. At the end of the thesis, Nasr arguments regarding tradition are critically evaluated with traditionalists as well as modernists.

1.5 Research Questions

The thesis aims to analyse the philosophical thought of Nasr systematically as well as contextually. The thesis investigates his traditional thought and the circle that inspired him and those thinkers who were attracted to Nasr’s ideas. The aim of the thesis is more of a philosophical than religious and sociological. The thesis contains several questions, such as how Nasr is defending tradition and how can it provide solutions to modern problems like environmental crisis and natural degradation, etc. How can his traditional method help in political, social, and economic realms? Does he mean to build new forms from the traditional principles? Does he mean to return to only one tradition or many? How Nasr’s Perennial thought is better than modern thought? How Nasr takes Western Philosophy and in what ways he is reacting against them? Does he criticise the entire Modern Western Science and Technology, i.e., Modernity and Postmodernity? What kind of new structure is Nasr suggesting? What kind of Islam is Nasr promoting, and what are the reactions of present Muslims? All these questions are broadly discussed and critically analysed in the present thesis.

References

Bishnoi, Dr. Kishna Ram, Narsi Ram Bishnoi. “Religions' Attitude Towards Nature: An Overview.” In Religion and Environment, by Kishna Ram Bishnoi, 25-44. Haryana, India: Guru Jambheshwar University, 2002.

Brooks, Page Matthew. A comparison of reaction to postmodernity and its influence on theological method in the works of Alister McGrath and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Eisenhower Parkway: ProQuest, 2008.

Chittick, William C. (ed.), The Essential Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Bloomington, Indiana: World Wisdom, Inc., 2007.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. (ed.), The encyclopaedia of Islamic Spirituality: Manifestations, Suhail Academy, 2000.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. (ed.), The encyclopaedia of Islamic Spirituality: Foundations, Routledge And Kegan Paul: London, 2008.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Intellectual Autobiography of Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Randall E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone Lewis Edwin Hahn. Chicago: Library of living philosophers, open court publishing company, 2001.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. A Young Muslim Guide to the Modern World. Chicago: Khazi Publications, Inc., 2003.

. Science and Civilization in Islam. Chicago: ABC International Group, Inc. 2001.

. Islam in the Modern World: Challenged by the West, Threatened by Fundamentalism, Keeping Faith with Tradition. New York, HaperCollins 2010.

—. Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrines. Conception of Nature and Methods used for its study by the Ikhwan Al-Safa, Al-Biruni, and Ibn Sina. Great Britain: Thames and Hudson, 1978.

—. Islam and the flight of modern man. Chicago: ABC International Group, Inc., 2001.

—. Knowledge and the Sacred. Albany, State University of New York press, 1989.

. The Garden of Truth: The Vision and Promise of Sufism, Islam’s Mystical Tradition. New York, HarperCollins 2007.

—. Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man. London, Boston, Sydney, Wellington: Mandala Unwin Paperbacks, 1990.

—. Religion and the Order of Nature. New York Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

—. The Heart of Islam, Enduring Values for Humanity. New York, HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2004.

—. The Need for the Sacred Science. UK, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.

.Traditional Islam in the Modern World. London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1994.

.The Seyyed Hossein Nasr Foundation. 1996-2018. (accessed May Thursday, 2019) https://www.nasrfoundation.org/biography.html

Oldmeadow, Harry. Frithof Schuon and the Perennial Philosophy. World Wisdom, Inc., 2010.

Zaidi, Ali Hassan. Islam, Modernity and the Human Sciences: Toward a Dialogical Approach. Ottawa, Canada: Published Heritage Branch, 2007.

CHAPTER-II

SEYYED HOSSEIN NASR’S APPROACH TO MODERNISM

2.1. Historical Background

This chapter aims to outline some of the classical discourses of modernity to provide a foundation for the subsequent chapters of the thesis. We began by looking at the rise of the discourse of modernity in the early modern period with some views of modernistic thinkers; however, Nasr’s views on Modernity will be the main concern of the thesis. Before examining how modernity has influenced Nasr’s theological method, we will go into brief detail of modernity and postmodernity and how the contemporary thinkers define it. A brief history is discussed to show the development of the movement of modernism leading up to postmodernism. In this chapter, a survey of contemporary scholar’s thought is used to define Modernity; after that Nasr is examined to show how their thought compares to other scholar’s.

Simply Modernism is considered a philosophical movement that emerged from Europe and spread gradually throughout the globe along with cultural trends and changes arose from wide-scale and far-reaching transformation in Western societies (Pericles 2000, 38-39). The important factors that shaped modernism were the development of modern industrial societies through technological advancement, scientific temper, rationality, and investigating things in a new way other than the traditional. Modernity, in this sense, is defined as thinking about new ideas, a kind of perception, a pattern of belief, or a form of hope that rejects traditional belief based on socio-cultural conditions. Before this, it was a time when all things were determined by the religion and culture; what is moral and what is immoral, what is ethical and what is unethical; hence all things were designed and defined by the values of culture and religion. Humans were completely bound and enslaved by these principles. It was the religion that decides everything of social life; freedom

21 was not possible at a large level. So a question of the enslavement rises in the European societies. That started the search for the new way of life which will provide better comfort and reject the superstitious belief. That developed a new kind of thinking called ‘Renaissance.’ Which arise a critique with the orthodox religion, but it forms two aspects, one those who fall in love with it and feel better comfort they celebrate modernity and those who are victims of it they offer critique to it.

The early stage of the movement started in Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. However, some modernist thinkers believe that it arises from the seventeenth and eighteenth century in Europe. There is no clear demarcation of date. Having a controversy and doubt on its date of emergence, we generally say it was a time when people were involved in a controversial debate between Traditionalists and Modernists. Modernists were those who have rejected classical style of living, Art, Architecture, Literature, belief, and value-system, and all were in favor of the modernity, which was characterized by a strong belief in science, industrial revolution and technological advancement. Some theorists argued that modernity persists, and others who see its demise as having occurred much earlier. When modernity is explained in terms of history, it is said that the world first experienced Renaissance, and then, Enlightenment and after that Modernity and Postmodernity. However, there is much disagreement on the precise dates of the beginning and end of the modernity. There appears to be a consensus on its meaning and social formations.

Modernity is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon; it can be studied from various dimensions like Literature, Arts, Architecture, Science, Philosophy, Music, Religion, Culture, Tradition, Customs, etc. Looking back towards Philosophy, modernity starts from the works of Bacon and Descartes. These philosophers are said to be the founders of modernistic thought in philosophy. The philosophical discourse of the Enlightenment is understood on the basis of key ideas such as Reason, Science, Logic, Freedom, Justice,

22 Tolerance and Harmony, and in opposition to the Metaphysics, Religion, Superstitious belief, Myths, Social Taboo and Exploitation. But, more broadly, modernity is associated with the following concepts like Industrialization, Urbanization, Democracy, Capitalism, Development, Superiority of power, Free Market, Optimism, and Rationality. The search for absolute knowledge in Science, Technology, Society, and Politics; the idea, that gaining knowledge of the true self was the only foundation for all other knowledge (Doshi 2003, 20).

At the initial we make it clear about the frequently usage of terms in this thesis that is ‘Man’ it is used as a synonym for Humans in a pluralistic way and ‘Modernity and Modernism.’ ‘Modernity’ is used as a synonym for ‘Modernism’ or of ‘Modern Times.’ While, many philosophers and sociologists like Bauman, Giddens, Habermas, tend to treat ‘Modernity’ and ‘Modern Times’ in the Enlightenment sense as synonyms, literary and art critics tend to identify ‘Modernity’ with aesthetic modernism. Zygmunt Bauman equates modernity with the age of reason, opposing it to postmodernity (Zima 2010, 05).

One of the early uses of the term ‘modern,’ which goes back to the fifth century, refers to the ‘retrieval of ancient culture.’ The ‘modern’ was the ‘new ancients’ (Delanty, 2000, 09). According to Jacques Le Goff, in the twelfth century, the word ‘modernitas’ was used, this was one of the first quarrels between Traditionalists and Modernists, to mean the critical assessment of an evolution and classics which had already lasted for centuries (Delanty 2000, 09). It was a movement where the Traditional Myths were removed by the scientific methods and logical reasoning. The idea of modernity is thus a projection backward as much as forward, and it is for this reason that it could also be a political project. The early Christian thinkers of the late Roman period were able to define their age as modern in opposition to the pagan world of antiquity, a term that was associated with the opposition of civilization to the pagan culture of the barbarians (Delanty 2000, 09).

23 At that time modernity was more closely associated with the rise of modern science, but by this time, modernity and the modernism had already come to designate a particular kind of time consciousness. The modern was defined by an orientation to the past and postulation an origin from which the present was both a derivation and a distanciation. For Christian thinkers of the early Medieval Age, the modern referred to the contemporary period of the early Church. Modernity was thus defined in opposition to the pagan period, which has been overcome. To be modern was to be contemporary, to witness the present moment. The idea of ‘the moment’ is central to the time consciousness of modernity and expresses a tension between the present and past. The seventeenth-century debate can be seen as a heightened consciousness of the uniqueness of the present moment. The moment of modernity exists in the space between present and past for the modern is not only an epoch that lives for the future, but one that is formed out of a particular conception of history. The critical appropriation of the past provides a modern spirit with its central driving thrust. The overcoming of an origin is part of this way of thinking, which ties the moment of the present to an act of historical appropriation (Delanty 2000, 09).

Modernity can also be known as awareness that ‘the moment’ is an ‘epoch,’ stretching forward as well as backward in time. In the age of Enlightenment, the epoch of modernity is thus seen as the period stretching from the sixteenth century to the eighteenth century, when, as a result of the scientific revolution, the Renaissance, the reformation and the age of discoveries, the old certainties of the middle ages were shattered. It was a time when people felt that the traditional forms of Art, Architecture, Literature, Religious Faith, Philosophy, Science, and Social activities, were becoming irrelevant and outdated in the new economic and socio-political environment. In literature, the poet Ezra Pound’s 1934 Injunction “Make It New” was the touchstone for the movement. The innovation like Stream-of-consciousness novel, and twelve-tone music, quantum physics, genetics, neuron networks, set

24 theory, analytical philosophy, the moving picture show, all had precursors in the nineteenth century. (“Modernism,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia)

Modernism could also be defined as a mode of thinking like self- consciousness or self-reference, that run across all the novelties in arts and other disciplines. It could also be understood as a form of self-consciousness, as a specific mode of life and as a vital experience. As a form of self- consciousness, it expresses the consciousness of an epoch, which considered itself new vis-à-vis an obscure and stagnant past (Larrain 2000, 23). More common especially in the West, are those who see it as a socially progressive trend of thoughts that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve and reshape their environment with the aid of practical experimentation, scientific knowledge, or technology (Marshall 1988, 16). From this perspective, Modernism encouraged the re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was ‘holding back’ progress and replacing it with new ways of reaching the same end. Others focus on Modernism as an aesthetic introspection. It facilitates consideration of specific reactions to the use of technology in the First World War, and anti-technological and nihilistic aspects of works of various thinkers and artists spanning the period from Friedrich Nietzsche to Samuel Beckett (Oser 2007, 21).

The movement of industrialization in the West had fractured the Traditionalism. Modernity, in an ordinary sense, means industrialization. It simply means technology, inventions, mass production, and innovations. Nowadays, industrialized societies are called modern societies. Present world is facing some challenges. Traditions gradually got weakened under the shadow of modernity. Religion and religious practices are practiced least as compared to the contemporary world. Historically speaking, modernization came with the process of urbanization and industrialization. Modernization has changed the political system of the world as compared to the traditional form like

25 Monarchs, Emperors and Kings. It has a direct influence on the customs and traditions of the societies.

The era of modernity is characterized socially by industrialization and the division of labour and philosophically by “the loss of certainty, and the realization that certainty can never be established, once and for all” (Delanty 2000, 10). With the emergence of new socio-philosophical conditions, there arose novel challenges. Various nineteenth-century intellectuals, from Auguste Comte to Karl Marx to Sigmund Freud, attempted to offer scientific and political ideologies in the wake of socialization and secularization. Modernity may also be described as the “age of ideology” (Calinescu 1987, 206).

The theorists, like Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, contributed immensely to the foundation of sociology in the late nineteenth century. Their theories are important, attempt to understand modernity. Each of them underlined a different angle of modernity. For Marx, what was the basis of modernity was the emergence of capitalism and the revolutionary bourgeoisie, which led to an unprecedented expansion of the productive forces and the creation of the world market. Durkheim tackled modernity from a different angle by following the ideas of Saint-Simon about the industrial system. Although the starting point is the same as that of Marx, feudal society, Durkheim emphasizes far less the rising of the bourgeoisie as a new revolutionary class and a very seldom refers to capitalism as the new mode of production implemented by it. The fundamental impulse to modernity is rather industrialism accompanied by the new scientific forces. In the work of Max Weber, modernity is closely associated with the process of rationalization and disenchantment of the world (Larrain 2000, 23).

2.2 Enlightenment: The Age of Reason

In the area of Philosophy, the Age of Modernity is the epoch that began with the Enlightenment (about 1687 to 1789). Isaac Newton championed the belief

26 that through science, the world could be saved and explained. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and later on, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), shaped the age intellectually by their beliefs that through ‘reason’ they could establish a foundation of universal truths. However, he criticized the Cartesian form of rationalism, i.e., pure and objective knowledge is possible. The Kantian solution was to find a mid-way between these two approaches. The answer that Kant found was a qualified skepticism about objective knowledge. He argues that Enlightenment is possible only when a certain kind of freedom exists. The essence of this freedom is the freedom to make public use of one’s own reason in all matters (Kant 1996, 58).

Along with the Kantian method, political leaders of modernity also championed reason as the source of progress in social change, believing that with the reason they could produce a just and egalitarian social order. Such beliefs fed the American and French democratic revolutions, the first and the second world wars. Later this Enlightenment projected the development of ideologies like Democracy, Capitalism, Industrialization, Science, and Technology (Barrett 1997, 17).

The whole project of Modernity did not emerge in a single night it took about two centuries. The obvious and important facts, it transformed traditional agricultural societies into modern, bureaucratic, rational, capitalistic, and scientific. It changed the economy of the world; presently, the entire world is divided into modern and modernizing, develop and developing. Modernity is not only a theory but a process, as a theory, it condemns traditions and as process, it rises postmodernity. Since, its beginning proponents of modernity have defended the modern against the dogma of religion, culture, customs, and traditions. The modernity and religion are therefore opposite to each other; it rejects the traditional religious claim. Its’ central dimension remains a critique of tradition and superstitious beliefs.

27 The historians describe Enlightenment as the age of reason. It was premised upon a belief in the universality of reason and the universal character of the scientific explanation. Modernity emerged out of this scientific nature of human society. It becomes clear to social scientists and philosophers that if Nature can be explained in terms of reason, why not society can be explained scientifically. It discouraged the traditional understanding of society. Modern science, which comes through Enlightenment, had raised questions through scientific reasoning, at that time when the hegemony of traditions was so strong in Europe and it received its first blow through modernity (Doshi 2003, 21).

From the beginning, we have seen that the definition of modernity is controversial. There are not certain dates from where it starts and where it ends. Some theorists and philosophers define modernism in different perspectives. Their arguments state that contemporary society is a modern society because it is bureaucratic, secular, rational, and democratic. Therefore, there is no alternative to it. Many theorists who see modernity as post-traditional and others see this post-traditional world of modernity being overtaken by postmodernity. However, there are also theorists who contemplate that there have been substantial changes in recent years and that we have moved into a new postmodern world. In a real sense, it may be said of the eighteenth century that it was the age of faith as well as the age of reason, and of the thirteenth century, it was an age of reason as well as of faith (Delanty, 2000, 35). Hence, Modernism becomes the subject matter of classical theorists as well. They have experienced in it and also lived in it. These thinkers such as Marx, Durkheim, Simmel, and Weber, they have disagreed on the perspective of modernity, and have agreed on the core features (Doshi 2003, 26).

2.3. Postmodernists’ Critique of Modernity

At the end of the nineteenth century, the dark age of modernity becomes apparent, when romanticists criticize all components of modernity, whether it is a scientific rationalization of Nature or the industrial revolution. They portray

28 modern society as destructive and alienated and questions on subjective autonomy. The initial indications of the thought were seen in Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche. These figures become the major influence on late nineteenth-century philosophy. The thought of these thinkers influences Durkheim, Weber and Simmel. The impact of their thought lay in a new emphasis on a creative spiritual rediscovery of the self. History and modernity were not important to them. Nietzsche rejected the Enlightenment’s vision of history and reason. His nihilist philosophy is more radical critique to modernism, and Heidegger is also considered as one of the radical criticizers of modernity. He attempted to develop new normative outside the parameters of modernity and rejected humanism, communism, and existentialism or so. He also critiqued nationalism and internationalism and the political culture of modernity (Delanty 2000, 21-22). Several philosophers and sociologists profoundly rejected modernity and here we are presenting some of the views of classical theorists:

Karl Marx: Marx’s explained modernism in terms of production relation. It was the main objective of the capitalist class to increase its production. More production means more profit. The entire capitalist class was depending on profiteering. Marx, therefore, argued that for capitalism, everything is a commodity. Dance, Drama, Literature, Religion, in fact, everything in society is a commodity. It is manufactured and sold in the market. Even religion and rituals are also items of the commodity. Alienation, exploitation, and oppression are all due to commodification. Rather, the economic items, the non-economic items are also things of commodification. Modernization, therefore, according to Marx, is nothing but a commodity, a thing to be bought and sold, and an item for trade and commerce. In short, modernity is commercialization (Doshi 2003, 26).

Max Weber: Weber is also critical to modernity. He argues that Calvinism a sect of protestant religion has certain ethics, which develop the spirit of capitalism. Weber argues that religion, through a spiritual order, is run on the

29 norms of rationality. Weber, at last, comes on the conclusion that rationality is a pervading theme, which characterizes human actions. He has, therefore, defined modernity as rationality. For him, modernity is synonymous with rationality (Doshi 2003, 26). Weber, who described so well the process of the rationalization and disenchantment of the world in the West, also warned that the triumph of instrumental rationality did not lead to a realization of freedom but rather to an ‘iron cage’ of bureaucratic rationality from which there was hardly any escape (Larrain 2000, 26).

Emile Durkheim: Durkheim defines Modernity in the context of social solidarity. His argument is that; ‘more there is differentiation, more there is modernity.’ Modernity creates functional dependence. In modern society, people depend on one another, and this keeps the society in a state of solidarity. Differentiation does not create disorganization; it creates dependence. And, therefore, for Durkheim, Modernity is differentiation; it is stratification. More is society stratified; greater is the level of modernity (Doshi 2003, 27). Durkheim, in his turn, although very clear about the advantages of Industrialism, was aware that the rapidity with which industrialization had occurred could make society deviate from its natural course to organic solidarity, thus producing anomie, inequality and inadequate organization (Larrain 2000, 26).

Georg Simmel: Simmel explained Modernity as a vital experience that privileged the inner feelings of individuals in the face of a complex and changing world. That is why Simmel could define the essence of modernity as “Psychologism” the experiencing and interpretation of the world in terms of the relations of our inner life, and indeed as an inner world (Larrain 2000, 26). Simmel explained Modernity in two ways: one is a city, and another is the economy. The city is where Modernity is concentrated or intensified, whereas the economy involves the diffusion of Modernity, its extension.

30 All these four thinkers who have defined Modernity according to their experience and make a criticism for its approach, the reason was that modernity had changed the whole structure of the society and traditions. As a result, loss of moral values and raises other issues like capitalism, alienation, exploitation, and oppression. All the views of the above four thinkers can be discussed in a single sentence as, Marx, Modernity is commodification’s, Weber, Modernity is rationality, Durkheim, Modernity is differentiation, i.e. Stratification and Simmel, Modernity is city life and economy (Doshi 2003, 28).

2.4. Contemporary Theorists

Several contemporary theorists define Modernity in their own ways. In defining Modernity there seems much more disagreement than agreement in theorists. For instance, Anthony Giddens considers Modernity as an inexorable force a juggernaut which offers several advantages but also poses a series of dangers. The dangers are so powerful that they can crush society and tear it asunder. Ulrich Beck follows the track of Giddens. He rather looks at the dark side of Modernity, only saying that modern society is a risk society. Therefore, it makes obligatory for the people to prevent risk and to protect themselves from it. George Ritzer, on the other side, looks at the brighter side of Modernity. He is optimistic, for him, rationality is the key characteristic of modern society. He stresses the importance of hyper-rationality. And it is exemplified through McDonaldization, credit card and fast food. Zygmunt Bauman argues that Modernity is nothing but a bundle of irregularities, and more generally, the dangers. Jurgen Habermas (German philosopher and sociologist) sees Modernity as an unfinished project. He too focuses on rationality of the life world. The process of modernization would be completed when the social system along, with the social world, is enriched rationally (Doshi 2003, 29). According to Habermas, Science would control the forces of Nature and cause a greater understanding of the self, the world, moral progress, social justice, and ultimately, human happiness. Therefore, the goal of the mind

31 was to discover the knowledge contained in the universe so that humanity could master the world and make it better (Habermas 1992, 162-163).

It is not easy to define Modernity in the context of contemporary theorists because there are definitions and meanings which are controversial, debatable. The theorists agree that the present society is passing through several changes which they call Modernity. Among these changes, some are beneficial, and the other has created risk and dangers. They also accept the beneficial notion of Modernity. But that is not all. The theorists are also scared of the risk involved in modern society. Perhaps, “Ritzer is closer to the meaning of Modernity when he defines Modernity as a juggernaut. Juggernaut is like a huge giant like machine, which can carry any load and cross any land. But it has also a capacity to crush anybody which dears to resist it. Control over this juggernaut requires a sustained exercise” (Doshi 2003, 30).

Anthony Giddens: Giddens argues that Modernity cannot be explained by a single term only. It is multidimensional. Giddens resisted the equation of Modernity with liberalism, industrialization, capitalism, or rationality. According to him, no single variable can provide a satisfactory definition of Modernity. Giddens was like Marx and others to make a critical approach and emphasizes the multidimensional nature of Modernity. Giddens first and foremost thinks about Modernity; “It is multidimensional, not monolithic,” and “It has four dimensions,” viz., Capitalism, Industrialism, Administrative Power, and Military Power (Doshi 2003, 30). Giddens argues that Modernity is separated from the past by three main discontinuities, first, the accelerated pace of change that characterizes modern societies, Second, the wide scope of change processes which become global, and third, the intrinsic nature of modern institutions which cannot be found in the past (Larrain 2000, 27). One more thing which Giddens explained was that he refers Modernity to modes of social life and these modes of social life have emerged society in the form of democracy, capitalism, industrialism, general education, global culture, etc.

32 Ulrich Beck: Ulrich Beck’s lot of work is about risk and globalization. He argues that Modernity has created a large number of risks for people. Now, the world is facing global warming and several other risks, including the degradation of the environment, pollutions, war, diseases, etc. Any kind of solution to these dangers is now seen impossible. According to Beck, late modernity is more dangerous and risky than the previous modernity. He argues that previous modernity has benefited people to a large extent, but the late modernity which he calls second modernity creates risk for society (Doshi 2003, 33). The man was not much more dependent on technology, the technology which is not only harmful to society but also for Nature, now the entire society is dependent on this latest technology which creates serious problems, climate change, global warming, natural disaster, uncured diseases and so on. Depending more upon the latest technology, man has suppressed Nature, and the result is the bad consequences.

Zygmunt Bauman: According to Bauman, modern societies have a feeling of self-confidence and superiority for past and other backward societies. According to him, this faith in its principles and the superiority of its mode of life has led the Europeans to consider Modernity as a point of reference for the interpretation of history (Bauman 1993, 128-129). They were considering old ways of culture as immature, incomplete, underdeveloped, and inferior; it was the reason that they interpret history on the basis to gain superiority and become well developed. According to him, a shift had taken place in modern societies, a change from the society of producer’s into a society of consumers. This change reversed Sigmund Freud’s “Modern” tradeoff, i.e., security was given up to enjoy more freedom, freedom to purchase, consume, and enjoy life. According to him, it was the shift from ‘Modernity’ to ‘Postmodernity.’ He criticized the movement and emphases that Modernity has raised fears.

Berman, one of the prominent thinkers of Modernity, has distinguished Modernity into three phases. First, from the beginning of the sixteenth century to the end of the eighteenth century, the levels of consciousness were low.

33 During this period, Modernity was still struggling to find the appropriate language to express the new reality, which they do not fully understand. The second period, starting with the revolutionary wave of the end of the eighteenth century, spans the whole of the nineteenth century. During this period, the new ideas of science, progress and, reason were highlights. The third period, Berman marks it in the twentieth century, which witnesses the expansion of the modernizing processes all over the world (Larrain 2000, 24).

When we deal with Modernity, we find three types of ideologies which are responsible for modernization. First, some ideologies directly endorse, or legitimate modernization. Second, the ideologies developed in opposition or resistance to modernization, these might be called counter-modernization ideologies. Third, which is important and essential, is the ideology which seeks to control or contain modernization in the name of values that are conceived to be independent of that process. We have seen two sides of modernization. From one side, we find an idea of modernization as redemption, and from another side, we find the idea that modernization is tantamount to damnation; it leads Nature to risk, danger, threat, and destruction. From the first side, it legitimates the attachment of profound hope and aspiration to the modernizing process. However, from the other side modernizing process is ideologically represented as dehumanizing oppression that must be resisted at all costs; otherwise it will destroy the entire society and natural environment. Nowadays some modernistic thinkers have developed a third type of position an intermediate position between the two sides of modernization processes and gave much more importance to that position.

The emergence of Modern Age out of the Medieval World has typically understood as a successful ending of a struggle of light over darkness or reason over superstition or science over theology. As we have seen above the different kinds of ideologies which are trying to explain Modernity, however, there are some different explanations of this transformation, some emphasizing the distinctiveness of Modernity, others its continuity with the preceding age

34 (Michael 2008, 01). Perhaps, the most widely held view today sees the modern era as the product of exceptional human beings, of brilliant philosophers, scientists, writers, and sociologist, who overcame the superstitions of their age and established a new world founded on reason, logic and science, eradicating the traditional myths and evil of societies. We generally say that Modernity is a creation of philosophers and scientists, like Bacon, Descartes, Locke, Marx and scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Newton, and other thinkers. The contemporary world in terms of its intellectual, religious, political, and moral has been significantly influenced by the philosophical ideas which originated in modern philosophy, especially with Descartes as considered a founder of modern philosophy. In philosophy Modernism is characterized by skepticism and anti-realism in epistemology and by relativism in ethics and politics. Descartes led this work but he does not know where his philosophical ideas would lead. Nevertheless, it is still true that the ideas introduced by Descartes and later developed by Locke and other philosophers. These gave birth to a new and influential philosophical way of looking at the world. This new way of looking at the world was completely new and different from the philosophical orientation of ancient and medieval thought. This change happens in the latter half of the twentieth century in our intellectual and philosophical approach to reality. Thus, the new way of looking at the world, was the idea which becomes dominant in our intellectual life; in law and science, in the humanities and the arts, in politics and religion, and even in popular culture and media (Sweetman 1999, 01).

The idea which raised the philosophical movement of Modernism was obvious and clear. Descartes rejected the medieval philosophies’ and their approach to knowledge and put forward scientific knowledge to understand reality. Descartes skeptical method doubting all of his beliefs using the argument from illusion put him in the position of skeptical. He wants to establish the validity and certainty of knowledge by means of the ontology, which he gave solution to the problem of knowledge. His ontological argument

35 did not proceed in identifying the problem (Sweetman 1999, 02). Descartes main purpose was to develop a philosophical sound foundation for scientific knowledge. The outcome of his skeptical method was deeply concerned with epistemology, either in explaining skepticism as a philosophical position or in developing epistemological theories which clearly explained how the problem could be overcome. Descartes skeptical method had given a new platform to search for knowledge. The intellectual revolution was led by Descartes and Galileo which has two aspects: first, it was a scientific revolution, because it led the innovations in physics and astronomy and, the second, it was the birth of a new method in philosophy. Newton’s creation of modern science as the start of Modernity and later on developed by Galileo in scientific terms, from the other side Descartes logic and natural philosophy in the 1930s. It is where Modernity begins in science and philosophy (Toulmin 1992, 08).

However, there are some differences between the Hobbes and Descartes on the bifurcation of Modernity. The first tendency of modern thought begins with Bacon and includes Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Mill, and many contemporary Anglo-American thinkers. A second tendency begins with Descartes and includes Leibniz, Malebranche, Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, most of the contemporary continental philosophers. The differences between them turn on several issues which influenced the number of thinkers in modern philosophy (Michael 2008, 25).

2.5. Nasr’s Critique of Western Philosophy and Modern Science

Seyyed Hossein Nasr is at odds with Modern Science and Modern Philosophy because he believes these disciplines are completely based on a sensible experience, unlike traditions and religions. He blames that since Renaissance, Modern Science based on “rationalism constructs a world-picture within the limits of reason alone while empiricism takes a similar position by reducing reality to the least common denominator, that is, sense experience” (Kalin 2001, 455). A new movement that gained shape in the form of Modern Science

36 started in the West and then deeply involved all the societies. The consequences of which were that all the old practices of people millions of years back started changing into new based on Science and sense experience. The movement raised several questions of traditional belief and remained fully involved in controversies and debates, which gained later attention of several people either in their support or against. From that time to now, several intellectuals have discussed either the benefits or the faults of the Movement. A large section of people has deeply criticized it because of rejecting their traditional religious belief. In another way, the opposition was based on neglecting the conceptions of science and cosmologies of traditional religions and not only that but immensely glorifying and legitimizing a new way of investigating things that are modern science.

The antagonism between Traditionalism and Modernism seems from its beginning. The modernistic thought is entirely different than the traditionalist way of looking things along with their proper context. The historical roots of modern philosophy seemed from the Renaissance when there was the rise of modern science particularly based on some fundamental principles of materialism and rationalism and neglecting all the ancient and medieval sciences, which had been seen more anthropomorphic and were fully dependent on traditional methods. Modernity stands for everything human, and it negates anything transcendent (Shah 2018, 604-610). It has disconnected themselves from the ideas of Tradition, which were divine and spiritual and were revealed by God. It has caused spiritual poverty. All the activities of modern thought from science to philosophy and psychology to religion possess certain universal characteristics and traits which Nasr recognize as anthropomorphic.

Before going to discuss the main problems of Modernism first, Nasr is facing a problem with the usage of the term ‘Modern’ which neither means ‘Contemporary’ nor ‘up-to-date’ nor does it signifies for him, something successful in the conquest and domination of the natural world. Rather for him,

37 ‘modern’ means that which is cut off from the Transcendent from the immutable principles which in reality govern all things and which are made known to man through revelation in its most universal sense (Nasr 1983, 1-13). It is generally compared with the tradition which is Divine in its nature and the modern, which is mainly human and opposite to Divine sources and is completely a new phenomenon.

Nasr asserts that ‘Modern paradigm’ had created a spiritual crisis for the modern man. Modern man only thinks about himself, and he or she has forgotten all about Nature and Divine realities. He acknowledges a variety of thoughts and movements that shape the modern man, but he sees it more a challenge than an opportunity. It is during these three or four centuries that Western cultural paradigm became the main driving force for the modern crisis. In the medieval period, cosmology was like as sacred art, and the relation between the theological principles and cosmology had been seen clearly in harmony, not in that sense which we witness today.

The whole change that the world witnesses presently is because of Western philosophy, which creates a conducive atmosphere for the Western Sciences to change the whole discourse. According to Nasr, Pre-Socratic philosophers were holding the same views which were similar to those of the Aryan cosmologies. This trend was also up to the medieval period, people held the same view about the matter and motion of the physical world in a religious sense, but now the modern man seeing it completely different. Nasr explains:

The ancient Greeks possessed a cosmology similar to that of Aryans. The elements and Nature itself were still inhabited by the gods. Matter was alive with spirit and the spiritual and corporeal substances had not as yet become distinct. The rise of philosophy and science in the sixth century B.C. was not so much the discovery of a new realm as an attempt to fill a vacuum created by the fact that the Olympian gods had deserted their earthly abode. The basic ideas of phusis, dike, nomos and the like which are fundamental to Greek science and philosophy are all

38 terms of religious significance which have been gradually emptied to their spiritual substance. The Pre-Socratic philosophers, far from being early examples of modern naturalists and scientists, were still searching for the universal substance which is both spiritual and corporeal and they can be quite legitimately compared to Samkhya System (one of the major orthodox School of Indian Philosophy). The water of Thales is not what flows in rivers and streams but is the psycho-spiritual substratum and principle of the physical world (Nasr 1990, 53-54).

Nasr agrees with the fact that it is first the Pre-Socratic philosophers who start to adopt the scientific explanation about cosmology besides its religious significance and then it becomes foundational for the Modernists. But, Modernists had added more on this still is going to an extreme level to describe cosmology on their rationalistic principles. Among them, Descartes one of the chief forerunner of the modern Western philosophy, which later works as a background for the other philosophers to cultivate modern philosophy opposite to religion. It became strong forces for religion, but Nasr argues that Descartes fails to regain access to the certainty of knowledge through his famous methods of skepticism and mathematicism. He “reduces the rich diversity of external reality to pure quantity and philosophy to mathematics” (Nasr 1990, 69). His philosophy which reduced ‘animals to machines’ and ‘reality to pure quantity’ which later was refused, but becomes the permanent background for the modern physics and several other sciences which seek to find quantitative relationships between things by overlooking their qualitative aspects (Nasr 1990, 68). Nasr further argues that he mistook mathematics of Nature for the philosophy of Nature and created such type of philosophy that served as a purpose of science for these days even are now persisting (Nasr 1996, 103). With Descartes, the reality in Western philosophy became reduced to mind and matter, and his method of doubting and dualism of mind and matter formed the basis of the modern philosophical camps such as materialism and idealism. According to Nasr, through the later philosophers, such as Spinoza and

39 Leibnitz this impoverishment of reality turned into an accepted fact and served as the foundation for science and especially mathematical physics till present date (Nasr 1990, 115). See also (Nasr 1996, 102) Nasr further said about Francis Bacon whose claim is that ‘science is power’, for Nasr it not only supports industrialists and all those who were in search of power not only to conquer the world and to create a global colony but, for all the humans from the economic point of view (Nasr 1991, 119).

Apart from the philosophical background of Modernity, Nasr held responsible some scientists who ignite its mission more like Galileo, Kepler, and Newton. For Galileo and Kepler, Nasr believes that they have a nasty kind of philosophical outlook. Galileo distinguishes between primary and secondary qualities and accepts that reality can be measured quantitatively, and it is only through the ways of empirical science that access to reality can be gained, it also became another fundamental base for the empirical science (Kalin 2001, 454).

For Newton, he believes that he was early a religious man and later invented a ‘mechanistic conception of the universe’ which worked not only against the religion but was completely against the holistic and metaphysical meaning of the Time, Space and Motion. It got too much currency and has the adverse effect of his early theological career (Nasr 1991, 113-128): See also (Nasr 1990, 70). This new science became the legitimate knowledge of the objective world, and other traditional sciences were gradually divorced.

Contemporary to them, another revolution in the field of science was bought by Copernicus, who held a view that the earth revolves around the Sun and with Newton’s explanation ‘how the cosmos works’ strengthened the belief that there is no need of God to explain how things work. It bought the spiritual and religious upheavals when the philosophical doubts reigned everywhere. In response to Copernicus and Newton’s proposal, Nasr asserts that “the sun is at the center of the solar system was not in itself new; for it was known by certain

40 Greek, Islamic and Indian philosophers, and astronomers. But its proposal during the Renaissance without an accompanying new spiritual vision of things could only mean a dislocation of man in the cosmos” (Nasr 1990, 66). Nasr did not agree with the Copernican theory of science and proposed that it was also known in early traditions with a spiritual significance. He claims that the Copernican revolution helped the humanistic conception of the Renaissance, which expels man from the center of the universe. However, during the medieval cosmology Nasr, claims that “man had been placed at the center of the universe, not as a purely terrestrial and earth-bound man but as the ‘image of God’” (Nasr 1990, 68). The purpose of his centrality was not only the human qualities, but it was more to theomorphic ones. This new cosmology which removes man from the center did not present him as transcendental in Nature, but it stated the loss of the theomorphic Nature by which he had been put at the center. Along these lines, regardless of the way that at first look it put down the position of man in the arrangement of things, on a more significant level it helped the inclination towards humanoid attribution and the Promethean rebel against the voice of heaven (Nasr 1990, 68).

Nasr not only rejected the above scientific theories of science but also strongly rejected Darwinian Theory of Evolution, which he expresses as:

I reject Darwinian evolution and the idea of the transformation of one species into another by merely natural causes as described by Darwin. Biologically speaking, I oppose macro-evolution, not the adaptation of a species to new conditions which occurs all the time. But more than that, I oppose the whole ideology based on evolution which would derive the greater from the lesser and forces us to believe in the most illogical and improbable scenarios in order to be certain to cut off the Hands of God from His Creation (Nasr 2001, 273).

Hence, according to Nasr, Cartesian skepticism, Newtonian mechanism, Copernican revolution, and Darwin’s theory during the Renaissance become the predominant world-views to determine the relation of man and Nature

41 scientifically and philosophically other than ontological. Nasr’s observation that this kind of philosophy exists everywhere not only rejects ontological interpretation but symbolic were never accepted (Nasr 1990, 71). As Nasr claims that new principles developed by the rationalists for the evaluation and judgments, instead of their consequences are for the absolutization of man and it has completely neglected Metaphysics and gnosis in a real sense.

Hence, all such types of development, which modern man had invented during the Renaissance from science to philosophy had desacralized cosmos, weakened the religion and forgotten the meaning of symbols. This revolution bought spiritual and religious crisis, in the form of defining cosmology in new scientific ways rejected the old one, which was fully depended on sacred Tradition. The modernistic revolution considered man as an ‘absolute’ removed the absolute character from God and therefore, make human reason, human interest, and human perception as a criterion of reality, of knowledge, of the truth, of the goal of human life (Nasr 2010, 182). However, these criteria neither satisfy him to power over Nature nor gave him a certainty to gain absolute knowledge of the universe. It neglected those realities which do not fall under their particular criteria, what they call rationality.

The principles that modern science established and through which man passes judgment and draws boundaries and criticizes all other traditional theories is a question mark for Nasr. For him, if the criticism is possible for Art, Literature, Politics, Philosophy, and Religion, then why not for science and its application, but it should be creatively and fruitfully. Nasr highlights that even if sometimes challenges are found from its domain, it is removed from its respected academia and after all do not occupy the same position as in art and literary critic. Nasr has immensely elaborated his scholarly disagreement with the certainty of science in his writings:

Applications to tire Contemporary Situation Some might say that whereas art and literature, or even politics and religion, are a matter of

42 personal choice and taste, science is validated by its positive applications which no one can deny or criticize. But this objection is false not only in that it neglects the objective norms and principles of religion, art and other non-scientific domains, but also completely misinterprets the theoretical structure of science and its practical applications in technology and engineering. Nineteenth-century inventors of the steam engine used a physical theory which today is considered as scientifically false…Moreover, even today a physical or chemical theory can change while its application continues untouched. The success of applied science, therefore, is no reason for accepting the infallibility of the scientific theories involved. There should be an intelligent and conscious criticism of science and its implications, both for those involved in the sciences, and most of all for those who are the recipients of the popularized versions of scientific theories (Nasr 1990, 115).

Nasr’s opposition to Western science and philosophy highlights his vision that modern man lost the age of faith in a pure and original form of celestial reality. He destroyed all the principles of the traditional realities which were to be judged by both knowledge and virtue. He made his thought criteria for the truth and falsehood; he forgot all metaphysical and cosmological truth, his firm belief on the modern philosophy that ‘man is the measure of all things,’ through this he forms a new conception of man, totally based on modern principles opposite to that whose belief was in Divine sources. He remarks:

With the Renaissance, European man lost the paradise of the Age of Faith to gain in compensation the new earth of nature and natural forms to which he now turned his attention. Yet it was a nature which came to be less and less a reflection of a celestial reality. Renaissance man ceased to be the ambivalent man of the Middle Ages, half angel, half man, torn between heaven and earth. Rather, he became wholly man, but now a totally earth-bound creature. He gained his liberty at the expense of losing the freedom to transcend his terrestrial limitations. Freedom for him now became quantitative and horizontal

43 rather than qualitative and vertical, and it was in this spirit that he went on to conquer the earth and with it to open new horizons in geography and natural history. However, there still existed a religious significance in wilderness and nature that had come down through the Christian Tradition (Nasr 1990, 64).

2.6. In defiance of Tradition

In defending Tradition, Nasr does not believe that the traditional or the premodern world was free of every kind of evil; rather, people did live in miseries in terms of internal conflicts and civilizational clashes. Nasr believes that the pre-modern world was prevailed by faith and Divine, which in typical terms he calls as ‘sacred’ the same is loss in the modern scientific world. Nasr addresses this universal problem in defending Tradition as a purely spiritual and philosophical phenomenon (Nasr 2001, 273).

Responding to Shu-Hsien Liu’s argument about traditions, “If we had to uphold all our traditions, we would still have to live in truly dark ages,” Nasr remarks that Tradition in this sense is highly misunderstood. He believes that Tradition never allows man to live in ignorance and darkness; rather, it makes man sensitive towards achieving the eternal illumination, i.e., metaphysical and transcendental which under the persistent assault of Modernity is undervalued. Nasr quite tacitly asserts, “if the Nature of man is to seek and reach the sacred, then we are now living in the dark ages based upon metaphysical ignorance, no matter how much we are illuminating our cities during the night with electricity” (Nasr 2001, 273).

For Nasr, metaphysics can provide us a universal significance and service of the traditional sciences of Nature which, due to the loss of the metaphysical knowledge, have lost their importance. He says:

Only a re-discovery of the doctrine of the multiple states of being, of cosmic correspondences and of the science of symbolism can reveal

44 again the meaning of such sciences as alchemy or astrology. There is no validity in the assertion that modern man can no longer see God in the sun and the sky except if one means by this that man has dosed his eyes to this aspect of things. Otherwise the structure of reality has not changed. Only man’s vision of it has altered (Nasr 1990, 129).

Nasr explains how deeply modern man is in investigating things even if he reached at its’ beneath level; traditional cosmology remains unchanged and unaffected. According to him, the metaphysical knowledge could play a crucial role as a link between modern sciences otherwise a restrictive phenomenon, and metaphysical doctrines, in this way metaphysical realm becomes more universalized as an approach to facts. Nasr is drawing more attention towards the modern man to understand the meaning of symbolism, and it is through the symbols that man can find meaning in the cosmic environment that surrounds him. He says:

In fact, to understand fully the meaning of symbolism, of the symbolic meaning of forms, colours and shapes, of all that surrounds us, is a way to see God everywhere. It is thus a way of making all things sacred. For this very reason it requires metaphysical discrimination and conformity to Pure Being which is the source of all symbols (Nasr 1990, 131).

Nasr explains to understand symbols in this manner does not negate the factual aspects of things. However, it means a revelation of the knowledge of another aspect of things which is more real and closely related to their existential root than the sensible qualities and the quantitative aspect with which modem science is concerned (Nasr 1990, 131). For him, ‘Nature’ may be studied as a book of symbols. It can be used to interpret and understand Nature depend upon the form of the revelation or idea (Nasr 1978, 02). Nasr expresses that, before modern time, man had to be saved from Nature. Today ‘Nature’ has to be saved from man in both peace and war. Many labour under the illusion that only war is evil and that if only it could be averted man could go on peacefully

45 to create paradise on earth. What is forgotten is that in both the state of war and peace, man is waging an incessant war upon Nature (Nasr 1990, 135).

While studying Nasr’s consensus on philosophy, we see a common question in him and his central thought revolving throughout his work ‘Modern Science’. He maintained two-fold strategies: one is a vast critique of Modern Western Science and another, to provide an alternate solution in the form of traditional doctrines. Keeping this method in mind, Nasr attempted to distinguish between traditional and modern, which he has elaborated in his writings. He critiqued the foundations of modern science, which he explains as a pseudo-religion of the Modern Age. Nasr’s work is much concerned with the metaphysics of science, either modern or pre-modern rather than the philosophy of science. For him, it is because of the absence of the traditional metaphysics that makes science modern and absolute. However, he claims that the rise of modern science is not the result of some ground-breaking advancement in scientific measurement; rather, it is a direct consequence of the rise of modern philosophy. It is important here to mention that Nasr is not fully against the modern science “but to its philosophical claims that apparently exceed its legitimate boundaries” (Kalin 2001, 447). He explains several results of modern science that came to his critical analysis, which Ibrahim Kalin explained in five traits as:

The first is the secular view of the universe that sees no traces of the Divine in the natural order. Nature is no longer the vestigia Dei of Christian cosmology but a self-subsistent entity that can be encapsulated exhaustively in the quantitative formulae of natural sciences. The second feature is the mechanization of the world-picture upon the model of machines and clocks. Once couched in terms of mechanistic relations, Nature becomes something absolutely determinable and predictable, a much needed safety zone for the rise of modem industrial society and capitalism. The third aspect of modem science is rationalism and empiricism as we have alluded to before. The fourth trait is the legacy of Cartesian dualism that presupposes a

46 complete separation between res cogitans and res extensa, that is, between the knowing subject and the object to be known. With this cleavage, the epistemological alienation of man from Nature comes to completion by leaving behind a torrent of pseudo-problems in modem philosophy, the notorious mind-body problem being a special case in point. The last important aspect of modem science is in a sense a culmination of the foregoing features, and it is the exploitation of Nature as a source of power and domination, a fact not unknown to modem capitalist society (Kalin 2001, 453).

Now we can see, in a brief way, how these aspects of modem science are figured out in Nasr’s critical analysis. For him, what happens with this scientific revolution was another method of looking at the world in the most profound sense. ‘Nature’ was never considered as a being of sacred significance with its life cycle and unity. The Modern man tried to build up a fake paradise by destroying its pure ‘Nature’; he tried to bring down heaven on the terrestrial plains by neglecting the Divine dictums of religion. This neglecting of the Divine dictums of religion becomes the favourable atmosphere for modern secularism, which reduced its pure quantity and soulless machine. For Nasr, “Descartes and Galileo had reduced Nature pure quantitative in order to be completely intelligible from the mathematical point of view. One of the great tragedies of modern science is that intelligibility as such was reduced to only mathematical intelligibility, and it is precisely this reductionism which I oppose strongly” (Nasr 2001, 467). Nasr takes another factor that is rationalism and empiricism that he called the progeny of the Enlightenment, rejects the ‘Great Chain of Being’ namely, the hierarchic view of the universe which lies at the heart of traditional sciences. Besides, he mentions that Pre-modern Sciences taught us the intrinsic values of ‘Nature’ for the progress of human society. Contrary to this, modern science shook this belief-system, and enslaved man in a typical rational approach to everything devoid of the traditional values and, hence gave rise to a value less system.

47 2.7. Nasr’s Disagreement with Modern Science

Nasr finds that the main cause behind the crisis in the modern thinking process is the lack of acceptance of the spiritual dimension and “the survival of scientism which continues to present modern science, not as a particular way of knowing Nature, but as a complete and totalitarian philosophy that reduces all reality to the physical domain and does not wish under any condition to accept the possibility of the existence of non-scientific worldviews” (Nasr 1990, 04). The opposition which Nasr raised against this particular philosophy was its’ absence of religion. It has tried hard to know about the outer domain of the physical world and to somehow it succeeds but has shown complete lack of its reliability and possibility with the inner domain of realities. For Nasr, the traditional doctrines have always been in binding the link between the physical world to the inner realities, but the Western Science in its particular Nature has prevented a modern man from knowing about the inward causes of his crisis. While, many individuals who are interested in religions see it as a religious matter and try to develop it from the theological point of view, but either they have moved away from its area or have been rejected by the mainstream thinkers (Nasr 1990, 05).

The science, from one sense, looks for Nasr, like a delicious fruit and in another sense the cause of the crisis. This secularised knowledge of Nature has removed the concept of God in Nature. Nasr argues that:

Western man have cut himself away from his celestial and immutable archetype and to become purely terrestrial and human, and the scientific revolution which carried this secularised vision of man to its logical conclusion by creating a purely secular science, Man, once he came to consider himself a predominantly secular being, developed a science that considers the changing aspect of things alone, a science that is concerned solely with becoming rather than being, and this is a most logical happening if we remember that even etymologically

48 secular is derived from the Latin secularis one of whose meaning is change and temporality (Nasr 1968, 1-2).

The above ideology has replaced the theocentric ideology, whose main purpose was to restrain the lust of humans from this material world and not only that but was working as a sole force for motivating the masses towards Nature and binds a strong relationship among them. The destruction causes disequilibrium in the relation between man and God. However, a large number of criticisms have posed during these decades by several philosophers, naturalists, social scientists and theologists concerning the danger of domination over Nature. Hence, a trend has been developed in the modern world from objectivism to subjectivism. Thus, it is seventeenth-century rationalism, which becomes the background for the Modernity. It became a well-furnished philosophy that looks things in a particular way; it rejected the primacy of the absolute truth and the Divine order. Nasr explained in a philosophical sense that it is a “worship of time and the transient, a kind of deification of time and becoming and all that flows in the temporal order” (Nasr 2010, 182).

Nasr has not completely rejected the fruits of the Western civilization nor does he completely reject modern science and technology. What he rejects is the scientific claim about absolute knowledge? He highlighted two fundamental errors in which ‘Scientism’ is based first; a disregard of the ‘deeper nature of man’ and second a ‘disregard of the sacred reality of Nature’ (Schwencke 2009, 23). He asserts that Modernity has reduced Nature to the mere quantity and mechanical relationship, Nature which has lost its inherent significance and Modernity has never spoken about spirituality. The main effect that scientific paradigms created is the oppression of Nature and caused more materialistic greed. It reduced human beings and his consciousness, psyche and spiritual abilities to material reality (Shah 2018, 604-610). He claims is that Modernity has bought huge destruction and imbalance of the natural environment.

49 Nasr finds several flaws in the modern paradigm and calls for a transformation of the paradigm. The paradigm has left humanity with limited and partial knowledge and a reductionist and ‘truncated’ vision of reality. What Nasr is suggesting is a new form of vision or a ‘greater vision’, new metaphysical and cosmological doctrines! He suggests a critical re-examination of our collective understanding of what Human and Nature means and what is our relationship with Nature. He sees the alternatives in the life of traditional societies (Schwencke 2009, 26). While comparing these traditional societies with Modern Societies, he finds it more secular and modern in the sense of having complete faith in modern science and technology, whereas traditional societies were spiritual and less modern. The drastic change that happened a few centuries ago during the process of modernization is that the traditional values which were highly spiritual have disappeared and the new values occur, which are modern and are more materialistic. These two systems, Traditional and Modern become the competing components in the present societies. They create unrest, a gap, and alienation from religious beliefs between the individuals in the society. He emphasizes this problem from an Islamic perspective. He argues that Modernity has moved humanity far away from the Divine Revelation and closer towards secular science. He claims that humans become more dependent upon themselves rather than on the real (Shah 2018, 604-610).

Later, Nasr talked about Postmodernism; both Modernism and Postmodernism are interrelated for him and created the same challenge to traditional religions and value-systems. He sees these two movements in this way: Modernism was a period when humans had a belief in reason to understand and control the Nature and the world. They relied more upon rationality and scientific technology, which bought modernization and which allowed humans to control over Nature more than ever before. Explaining Postmodernism, Nasr, simply says, it is the continuation of Modernism and is nothing new because humans have been continuously moving farther away

50 from relying upon Divine Revelation and more towards human rational and scientific knowledge. During the increase of modernization, humans become more self-reliant and individualistic, supporting more modernization has led humanity into Postmodernism. We see most of these developments happened in the West, and through globalization, it spread throughout the world. This led Nasr to believe that Modernism is a complete Western phenomenon and he used this reason to explain that ‘Modernisation, Postmodernisation and Westernisation’ are one single movement and having the same origin and same means. All the elements of the West whether be it education, economics, or politics, have adversely affected their traditional religious values and all other traditional religious beliefs, particularly Islamic belief. This effect, according to Nasr, spread to every nook and corner of the world and thus drifted humanity from the traditional religious beliefs into the web of Modernity (Shah 2018, 604-610).

51 References

Barrett, Terry. Modernism and Postmodernism: An overview with art examples. Washington, DC: Art Education, 1997.

Bauman, Z. The Fall Of The Legislator, in T. Docherty Postmodernism, a reader,. Hemel Hempstead: Hamester, Wheatsheaf, 1993.

Calinescu, Matei. Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avant-garde, Decadence, Kitsch, Postmodernism. Durham: Duke University Press, 1987.

Contributors, Wikipedia. Modernism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/modernism (accessed 05 14, 2019).

Delanty, Gerard. Modernity and postmodernity, knowledge, power and self. London, New Delhi,: Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2000.

Doshi, S.L. Modernity, Postmodernity and Neo-Sociological Theories. Jaipur and New Delhi: Rawat publications, 2003.

Habermas, Jurgen. Modernity: An Unfinished Project, In the postmodern reader. Edited by Charles Jencks. New York: St. Martin's, 1992.

Kalin, Ibrahim. The sacred versus the secular: Nasr on science. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn, Randall E. Auxier and JR. , Lucian W. Stone. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, The Library of Living Philosophers, 2001.

Kant, Immanuel. “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” In What is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-Century Answers and Twentieth Century Questions , by Schmidt J. Berkely: University of California Press, 1996.

52 Larrain, Jorge. Identity and Modernity in Latin America,. UK, Malden, MA: Cambridge, polity, Blackwell, 2000.

Marshall, Berman. All that is Solid Melts into Air: The experence of Modernity. New York, USA: Penguin, 1988.

Michael, Allen Gillespie. The Theological origins of modernity, (Online) Journal homepage:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcri20. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2008.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrine. Britain: Thames and Hudson, 1978.

—. In Search of the Sacred; A Conversation with Seyyed Hossein Nasr on His Life and Thought. Edited by Ramin Jahanbegloo. California: Praeger, ABC-CLIO, LLC Santa Barbara, California, 2010.

—. Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man. London, Boston, Sydney, wellington: Mandala Unwin Paperbacks, 1990.

—. Religion and the order of Nature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

—. Science and Civilisation in Islam. Chicago: ABC International Group, Inc., 2001.

—. The Need For the Sacred Science. UK: Curzon Press, 1993.

—. Islamic Science: An Illustrated Study. World of Islamic Festival Publishing Company Ltd, 1987.

—. Islamic Philosophy from its Origin to the Present: Philosophy in the Land of Prophecy. New York: State University of New York Press, 2006.

53 Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. “Man in the Universe Permanence Amidst Apparent Change.” Studies in comparative Religion ( World Wisdom, Inc.) 2, no. 4 (1968).

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. “Reflections on Islam and Modern Thought.” Studies in Comparative Religion (World Wisdom, Inc.) 15, no. 3 & 4 (1983).

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. “Religion and Environmental Crisis: An Oriental Overview.” India International Centre Quarterly (India International Centre) 18, no. 1 (1991):113-128.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Reply to Ibrahim Kalin. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn, Randall E.Auxier and JR. Lucian W. Stone. Chicago: open court publishing company: The Library of Living Philosophers, 2001.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Reply to Shu-Hsien Liu. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn, Randall E. Auxier and JR. Lucian W.Stone. Chicago: open court publishing company: The Library of Living Philosophers, 2001.

Oser, Lee. The Ethics of Modernism: Moral ideas in Yeats, Eliot, Joyce, Woolf and Becket. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Pericles, Lewis. Modernism, Nationalism and the Novel,. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Schwencke, A.M. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Traditionalism, Islamic Esotericism & Environmental Ethics. Leiden, Netherland: Leiden University, 2009.

Shah, Nasir Ahmad. “Analysing Seyyed Hussein Nasr's Approach to the Clash of Traditionalism and Modernity.” Research Guru; Online Journal of Multidisciplinary Subjects (Research Guru) 12, no. 2 (September 2018): 604-610.

54 Sweetman, Brendan. ed., The Failure of Modernism: The Cartesian Legacy and Contemporary Pluralism. Washington D.C.: American Maritain Association publications, 1999.

Toulmin, Stephen. Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Zima, Peter V. Modern/Postmodern, Society, philosophy, Literature,. London and NewYork: Continuum international publishing group, 2010.

55 Chapter-III

ISLAM, OTHER TRADITIONS, AND THE MODERN WORLD

3.1 Introduction

This chapter explores the perspective(s) of Seyyed Hossein Nasr on traditions, particularly the Islamic tradition or in a way Sufi tradition. Emphasis is also laid upon the important Hindu and Christian traditions. A comparison of these traditions is made with regard to Modernism and Scientific Revolution. Also, the chapter explores the causes and consequences of internal clashes due to which various traditions were weakened and rendered incompatible with other contemporary traditions. Further, the forces which beget and supported Modernism are thoroughly examined. Moreover, the chapter takes into consideration the contemporary traditionalists who inspired Nasr. A detailed account of his philosophy pertaining to the whole ‘Tradition’ is provided and his critique to modernism on that basis is presented.

The perspective of Nasr is a general perspective, mainly focusing on the Western audience. He considers himself as a traditionalist and anyone who may read his work shall consider him a traditionalist. Though the origin of the term ‘Tradition’ seems vague and problematic, yet it is important to understand before reading Nasr. In order to understand traditionalism as viewed by him, the first query would be: what does he mean by ‘tradition’? Does it mean for him the traditions of all religions or only a particular tradition in which lies his personal faith? This study tries to answer these questions.

Nasr has been influenced by a number of perennialist scholars, like Rene Guenon (1886-1951), Ananda Coomaraswamy (1877-1947) and Frithjof Schuon (1907-1998) and the legacy of Schuon like Titus Burckhardt, Martin Lings etc. (Monastra 2001, 494). Guenon remains the central figure of the

school in Europe and United States while Schuon, who gave final shape to perennial philosophy, is more subtle than Guenon. His teachings comprise of many areas, particularly art and moral philosophy, which is more based on spiritual dimension. Nasr, as inspired by the traditional metaphysics of these scholars has regularly contributed to the field of comparative religion and perennial philosophy. The entire work of this traditionalist circle, including Nasr, is a strong contribution towards traditional metaphysics, cosmology and perennial philosophy and is very strongly critical to Modernity (Quadir 2013, 51). The most important of this circle are Coomaraswamy and Guenon who have developed a strong critique to modernism and defended a number of common doctrines, although the entire critique involved other scholars, such as, Huston Smith, Marco Pallis, Titus Burckhardt and Martin Lings (Nasr 2004, 108). From time to time, this group compiled a traditional doctrine, which, on the one hand, explains tradition and its values and, on the other, criticizes modernity.

3.2 Perennial Philosophy and its Influence on Nasr

The term ‘perennial philosophy’ was first used by Agostino Steuco (1497- 1548) and later on by Leibniz and Steuco who identified it with ‘perennial wisdom’ embracing both philosophy and theology and not just one school of wisdom or thought (Nasr 1989, 65). Huxley defines it as “the metaphysics that recognizes a Divine Reality substantial to the worlds of things and lives and minds” (Huxley 1947, 01). He claims that metaphysics covered many areas of life such as psychology and ethics and may be found among the traditions of primitive people across the world. The perennial philosophy, which has a place in every religion can provide an alternate solution to the problems raised by the modern age (Shah 2018). A. K. Coomaraswamy, as an important advocator of traditional doctrines, translated Sanatana dharma as philosophia perennis to which he added the adjective universalis (Nasr 1989, 65). It is another name of

perennial philosophy. It is at the highest symbolic level that universalism seems in unity with the vast diversity of traditions in time and space.

In this relation, Nasr is one of the foremost perennialist writers who is closely identified with a given religious tradition, both as being born in it and as being brought up under many of its dimensions. He inherited his Islamic spiritual identity from a long and esteemed line of scholars. He is not simply an expert on Islam but is referred among the important personalities of Persian Science, Literature, Art, and Spirituality. Nasr’s case is, however, different from that of the other perennialists who have adopted a religious form completely different from that of others in which they were born, such as Guenon and Schuon chose Islam and Marco Pallis chose Buddhism. Apart from this, Nasr is a foremost perennialist writer who is well-read in modern science than others. Guenon had a mathematical background and was not directly involved in the study of modern science. Schuon and others did not show any interest for scientific reductionism and materialism. Nasr is possibly the only perennialist whose knowledge background ranges from physical sciences to traditional sciences of all religions. This unique aspect in Nasr’s intellectual landscape has tackled the contemporary predicament of the environmental crisis and brings the metaphysical insights in them. This familiarity on both sides of the science makes him an ideal spokesman in the perennialistic line and delves in a more fashionable way into the fallacies of science disconnected from metaphysical science. About Nasr, Ibrahim Kalin writes,

….opens up a new avenue for facing up to the challenge of modern science without sacrificing the traditional ideas and values, and for rejecting the totalizing claims of the modern secular worldview which continues ever increasingly to dominate every facet of human life (Kalin 2001, 457-458).

Throughout his scholarly vocation, Nasr's idea has kept on illustrating significant faithfulness and liking with scholars of the perennialist influence. In the Philosophia Perennis, Nasr discovers his essential justification and technique for comparative philosophy and religious examinations of particular impact in the writing of Frithjof Schuon's The Transcendent Unity of Religions (1953). The important claim of Schuon was that there is transcendental unity of all religions and can be exoteric as well as esoteric. They can be formally different but essentially the same. The clashes between religions such as Islam and Christianity are exoteric, not esoteric. According to Schuon, religious traditions are not social constructions but spiritual organisms. He explains:

A religion is an integral whole comparable to a living organism which develops according to necessary and exact laws; one might, therefore, call it a spiritual organism, or a social one in its most outward aspect. In any case, it is an organism and not a construction of arbitrary conventions; one cannot therefore legitimately consider the constituent elements of a Tradition independently of their inward unity, as if one were concerned with a mere collection of facts (Schuon 2005, 108).

This positive aspect of Schuon’s philosophy laid a significant impact on Nasr. His grip of Schuon's point of view drives him to grasp that all Traditions, including Christianity, have a spiritual base. This view also causes him to dismiss the scientific study of religions, which defines religion as exoteric and social constructions, instead of perceiving their esoteric dimensions which join them as living creatures inspired by the Spirit. Schuon’s approach to traditions brings confidence in Nasr to criticise modern science, its art, and architecture and especially its new way of looking at religion.

Apart from Schuon, Nasr relied on Guenon’s criticism of the Western style of progress—scientific, economic or technical—by studying Hindu eschatological structure and called it the loss of vision that disintegrates the society. The whole work of Guenon promoted Nasr to focus on the perennial

philosophy and traditional form of science, especially the traditional Islamic Science. The Need for a Sacred Science by Nasr clearly seems inspired by Guenon’s Symbols of Sacred Science published in 1962. In suggesting resolution to the problem of ecological crisis, Nasr in a creative manner repeated the works of Guenon and Schuon. Apart from them, the whole philosophy of perennialists had developed a tendency in Nasr to forward a critique to modernity and a kind of a living vision that makes Nasr as one of the top figures of the traditionalists especially from the Islamic background. Their philosophy became the primary solid sources for the ideology of Nasr and sustained on his mind and in soul throughout his academic career, which he describes in his own words:

These intellectual and existential experiences not only rooted my mind and soul for the rest of my life in the world of tradition, intellectual certitude, and faith, but also led to the discovery of inner illumination, the harmonious wedding of “logic and transcendence,” to use the title of one of the works of Schuon, and intellectual lucidity and rigor combined with love for truth and beauty. These years also set my gaze more fully on the horizon of universal and global truth in the traditional sense of the word, embracing not only the Islamic tradition which was my own, but also the Western, both Greco-Alexandrian and Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Far Eastern and primal, and also including esoteric Judaism associated with the Kabbala, and Zoroastrianism and other Iranian religions (Nasr 2001, 27).

Nasr explored this vision through his works in the contemporary era. He is globally cited for his work on ‘Nature’ and ‘Traditional Science’. The Perennialism and Tradition is the foremost and central to Nasr’s philosophy which raises the question as to why Nasr displays sympathies towards tradition and perennial philosophy and why he suggests ‘return to tradition’? It may be so in order to overcome the problems that arise due to the modern age. It is apt to detail the arguments based on the understanding of how Nasr defines the

word ‘Tradition’ which derives from the Latin word “Traditio” meaning ‘to handing over’, ‘handing down’ or ‘transmission’. Etymologically, Tradition may be defined as the beliefs, customs, and opinions handing down from one generation to another (Merriam-Webster Inc. 2018). Thus, tradition implies a relation to someone to give and someone to receive. In this response, Nasr explains tradition in a simple way in his own words:

Tradition is etymologically related to transmission of knowledge, practice, techniques, laws, forms and many other elements of both an oral and written nature. Tradition is like a living presence which leaves its imprint but is not reducible to that imprint (Nasr 1989, 64).

Traditions should be sharply distinguished from customs, conventions or time- bound principles and practices. It is characterized by a temporality and universality. Its source is divine motivation and it is passed on from age to age. However, fundamentally, it is absolute and endless and discovers verity of social structures and practices. The word ‘tradition’ as St. Augustine says, “Wisdom uncreate, the same now as it ever was and ever will be” (Oldmeadow 2010, 69). This immortal insight has conveyed numerous names: Philosophia Perennis, Din al-Haqq, Lex Aeterna, Hagia Sophia, Akālika Dhamma, and Sanātana Dharma etc. This reality is undefined beyond all conceptualizations in itself and in any capacity. This universal insight, since the beginning of the time of all mankind, can likewise be assigned as the Primordial Tradition. René Guenon explains, “the Tradition contained in the Sacred books of all peoples, a Tradition which in reality is everywhere the same, in spite of all the diverse forms it assumes to adapt itself to each race and period” (Oldmeadow 2010, 69). In this sense, tradition becomes synonymous with a perennial philosophy which is eternal, universal and immutable (Oldmeadow 2010, 69). As Nasr points out:

Tradition means truths or principles of a divine origin revealed or unveiled to mankind and, in fact, a whole cosmic sector through

various figures envisaged as messengers, prophets, avataras, the Logos or other transmitting agencies, along with all the ramifications and applications of these principles in different realms including law and social structure, art, symbolism, the sciences, and embracing of course supreme knowledge along with the means for its attainment (Nasr 1989, 64).

The fundamental vocabulary that is used for the traditions such as Hindu and Buddhist is dharma, in Islam al-Din, in Taoist Tao and the like, which are inextricably related to the meaning of the term ‘Tradition’, but not identical with it (Nasr 1989, 63). Nasr observes that the tradition in a universal sense, to a large extent, endorses all the traits which in one way or the other link the essence of humans with the Creator. In this way, religion too is one of those principles revealed by the Creator, which directly links the created with His Being (Nasr 1989, 64). Tradition, in the most universal sense is a primordial truth that is present in the very fabric of the universe. It does not need any proof as it is obvious and self-validating guideline. As Coomaraswamy said, “a first cause, being itself uncaused, is not probable but axiomatic”. By ‘uncaused,’ Coomaraswamy means unconditioned, outside the realm of phenomenal contingencies. Thus, the Primordial Tradition or Sophia Perennis is of supra-human origin and is in no sense a product or evolution of human thought: it is “the birth-right of humanity”. It is in the words of Marco Pallis, “formless and supra-personal in its essence” and thus, “escapes exact definition in terms of human speech and thought” (Oldmeadow 2010, 70).

Generally, this term is understood in contrast to modernism, which is why the term is perhaps even vaguer than that of modernism. We generally understand the things or habits which we follow from our ancestors and which are imported into our society from the past i.e., prior to modernization as traditional. Indirectly, we understand ‘Tradition’ with reference to European culture and when we look towards a period of European history before reformation we call that ‘Traditional’ and later on ‘Modern’, but “to call non-

Western society traditional is, therefore, to claim that it is similar to Europe before the Reformation. In contrast to modernism, traditionalism can be used to designate any movement of resistance to modernization or the view that premodern societies are superior to modernized societies” (Legenhausen. 2002, 07). What Nasr means by tradition is a real science which is truth in itself and comes from the Divine source and contains all the aspects of life be it social, economic, spiritual and in art form:

Tradition, like religion, is at once truth and presence. It concerns the subject which knows and the object which is known. It comes from the Source from which everything originates and to which everything returns. It thus embraces all things like the “Breath of the Compassionate” which, according to the Sufis, is the very root of existence itself. Tradition is inextricably related to revelation and religion, to the sacred, to the notion of orthodoxy, to authority, to the continuity and regularity of transmission of the truth, to the exoteric and the esoteric as well as to the spiritual life, science, and the arts (Nasr 1989, 64).

3.3 Islamic Tradition

Nasr seems to be different from other thinkers while supporting traditions as mentioned above. However, when we look into the Islamic world, tradition generally means highly valuing the sayings of the Prophet ‘Al-Hadith,’ deeds of the Prophet and his decedents. It is an important aspect in Islam and is considered as a primary source of authority. Nasr’s understanding is strongly rooted in traditional Islam which he, in another sense, called Sufism. In his own words, he claimed that “I embraced Sufism, not intellectually but also existentially” (Nasr 2001, 27). For him, it is living practice for whole humanity if it is practiced in a proper way, not in the way world treats it as extremistic. Tradition, in a simple way, Nasr explains, is a “binding” between man and God and men and men to form a sacred community which Islam calls an Ummah. In

this sense, religion is the origin of the tradition whose revealed principles are its laws. Nasr describes tradition in a broad sense if it is properly understood as al-Din, which includes all aspects and divisions of the religion like al-Sunnah or all other models based on sacred and al-Silsilah means the chain or order which relates to the origin as seen in Sufism (Nasr 1994, 13). Therefore, he further explains Tradition with an example of tree:

Tradition, therefore, is like a tree, the roots of which are sunk through revelation in the Divine Nature and from which the trunk and branches have grown over the ages. At the heart of the tree of tradition resides religion, and its sap consists of that grace or barakah which, originating with the revelation, makes possible the continuity of the life of the tree (Nasr 1994, 13). See also (Nasr 2010, 183).

According to him, during the traditional civilization, tradition was seen as a tree whose roots were seen permanent and strongly grounded in Divine Revelation and branches grown in different seasons and at different times (Nasr 2010, 183). Nasr further explains that in any circumstances tradition remains a tradition. It “implies the sacred, the eternal, the immutable truth, the perennial wisdom, as well as the continuous application of its immutable principles to various conditions of space and time” (Nasr 1994, 13). It cannot be changed from time to time but remains same through all the stages of its existence. These are not man-made nor invented by humans which can be changed at any time. They are sacred in nature. However, in the modern world, tradition has been used in an ordinary sense as ‘custom’ and ‘habit’. For Nasr, ‘habit’ and ‘custom’ are different than what he understood by tradition. He explains it by tracing it all the way back to Guenon, Coomaraswamy and Schuon who have described it as ‘sacred’. However, he further elucidates that “sacred is different from tradition in its conceptualization in that tradition implies taking the sacred and transmitting it and applying it and making it visible and palpable through different channels and different means; while the sacred is the spiritual

presence and reality that tradition transmits. So, the two are really inseparable from each other” (Nasr 2010, 204).

Nasr had to make the distinction between ‘sacred’ and ‘tradition’ same as has done its founders such as Coomaraswamy and Guenon. They did not directly discuss “Traditionalism” but they have deeply elaborated the religious, metaphysical and esoteric tradition of the world. It was Guenon who initially characterized what most of the later traditionalists have implied by ‘Tradition’; the transmission of a perennial wisdom, unanimous in essence, from the beginnings of mankind to this present minute, a transmission punctuated and directed by Divine revelations and ceaselessly restored by the human capacity for the intellectual intuition of the spiritual Truth. This faculty of Intellection remains hidden in the general public but remains unveiled in case of prophets, saints and sages (Upton 2018).

Traditionalists advocate that the notion of authentic traditions is rooted in the Divine Revelation and the common features which are found in every religion across pre-modern societies, whether it was Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and any other religion. The common features of those societies which are universal are called Tradition and the advocacy of these universal features over modern societies is traditionalism (Legenhausen. 2002, 07). The statement simply reflects a form of religious pluralism in all these religions. Nasr claims that God will raise up traditionalism in all religions to save humanity from spiritual poverty which is caused by modernity and postmodernity. It also reflects that a traditionalist like Nasr believes in religious pluralism. Now, before going to discuss religious pluralism, let us discuss Nasr’s own belief on Sufism which is also an Islamic tradition. Afterwards, the religious pluralism and fundamentalism in context of Nasr will be dealt with.

3.4 Sufism

Nasr in his major works describes Sufism as the esoteric or inward and mystical dimension of Islam. By esoterism, he means the inner dimension of

both religion and reality itself----of manifested reality (Nasr 2007, 74-75). Nasr fully agrees with and supports the explanation of Martin Lings as elaborated in the latter’s book What is Sufism? Lings explained by using the words of Ibn Arabi, who during his prayer used to say “Enter me, O Lord, into the deep of the Ocean of Thine Infinite Oneness”. Lings explains the word ‘Ocean’ as a symbolic reference to the end towards which the path of a Sufi is directed. Later, he explained with the help of this symbol that during the passage of time, “Revelation ‘flows’ like a great tidal wave from the Ocean of Infinitude to the shores of our finite world; and Sufism is the vocation and the discipline and the science of plunging into the ebb of one of these waves and being drawn back with it to its Eternal and Infinite Source” (Lings 2005, 11).

Thus, Sufism here means complete surrender to God and it is not possible without realization and love of oneness of God which is the first principle of Islam. Hence, it is important here to mention that Sufism is not against Islamic tradition or Islamic mysticism that is why Islamic revelation becomes the central aspect of Sufism as well and is considered as authentic and strong. He understood Sufism as a kind of mysticism in its deepest and original sense: mysticism “by definition is concerned above all with the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven” (Lings 2005, 12). He looks at the etymological meaning of the word ‘mystery’ and ‘mystic’ which are derived from the Greek word ‘muen’ which means “to keep silent, to keep quiet”. Nasr, corresponding to this, tries to explain this through a Persian poem: “Whoever is taught the mysteries of God, his mouth has become sealed and his lips sewn”. The silence of which Nasr and a Sufi speaks is in reference to the esoteric or inward or that truth which leads to the inward, to the truth about one remains outwardly silent. In this sense, Nasr claims mysticism is the discipline that can be equated with Sufism, not in the modern sense of something ambiguous, vague and illogical (Nasr 2010, 275-276).

Generally, we can say that a mystic or a Sufi could be characterized as one who asks the question about ‘the straight path’? And for an enquiry of that path, a Sufi is in search to reach that Ultimate Truth, as they believe that for it they have to come, and for it they have to return. This is the main assumption of the Sufi that is summed up in the single verse of the Qur’ān: Inna li 'Llahi wa-inna ilayhi raji 'un, (Verily we are for God and verily unto Him, we are returning) (Qur’ān 2: 156). The concept of returning to God is essential for the Sufi; without returning, Sufism is nothing. Besides this, Sufis call themselves ‘travellers’ and practise it with complete dedication.

Islamic traditionalists, especially Nasr, consider the sources of Sufism from the inner dimensions of Islamic Revelation, that is, the Qur’ān as explained by him ‘the marrow of the bone’ (Nasr 1977, 43) and the inner being of the prophet and his instructions (hadith). These Prophetic instructions were followed by his companions especially by Imam Ali whom Nasr considered as the most prominent figure. After that, these instructions were transmitted to the next generations to Salman-e-Farsi and Hasan al-Basri and the grandsons of the Prophet Imam Hasan and Imam Husain. Nasr considered them as the initial figures of Sufism through which Sufi tradition reached the people. Further, he explains that Sufism could not be created nor could one become a Sufi by simply reading the text of the Qur’ān and Hadith unless God helps him in a spiritual way. These texts are considered a foundational doctrine for Sufism but alone cannot help to become a true Sufi; it needs a spiritual guide from the spiritual Sufi masters transmitted from the Prophet generation by generation; Nasr calls it Walayat (Nasr 2010, 286). Nasr believes these Sufi masters represent the esoteric dimension of Islam. After believing in all these principles, one can free himself from hypocrisy, polytheism, and the prison of multiplicity. As Nasr remarks:

In fact, the whole programme of Sufism, of the spiritual way or, Tariqah, is to free man from the prison of multiplicity, to cure him

from hypocrisy and to make him whole, for it is only in being whole that man can become holy. Men confess to one God but actually live and act as if there were many gods. They thus suffer from the cardinal sin of 'polytheism' or shirk, from a hypocrisy whereby on one level they profess one thing and on another act according to something else. Sufism seeks to bring this shirk into the open and thereby to cure the soul of this deadly malady. Its aim is to make man whole again as he was in the Edenic state. In other words, the goal of Sufism is the integration of man in all the depth and breadth of his existence, in all the amplitude which is included in the nature of the universal man (al- insan al-kamil) (Nasr 1977, 43).

The above text clearly lays down Nasr’s standpoint on Sufism as an ultimate way that can lead modern man out of his frustration created by the modern phenomena. He sees Sufism as a way of integration and recovery of humans from unholiness and polytheism i.e., shirk and multiplicity. However, it is to be understood that he does not refuse to accept pluralism. For him, if Sufism is followed in a proper manner, it will bring integration of man, which he says is the need of the time.

While the perennial and Sufi characteristics possibly created postmodern tendencies in his ideology, he is strongly critical to postmodernity. His meaning of tradition has become related to the perennial wisdom which, he says, lies in every religion and is like Sophia Perennis of the Western tradition, Sanatana Dharma in Hindus and al-Hikmat al-Khalidah in Muslims (Nasr 1989, 65). Nasr looks at the Perennial Philosophy as a framework for practical life that can provide a common foundation for the metaphysical and epistemological systems. It is primarily concerned with the One Divine Reality substantial to the manifold world of things and lives and minds. Further, Nasr’s ideas resemble with Aldous Huxley which the latter explains in his book The Perennial Philosophy as:

In studying the Perennial Philosophy we can begin either at the bottom, with practice and morality; or at the top, with a consideration of metaphysical truths; or, finally, in the middle, at the focal point where mind and matter, action and thought have their meeting place in human psychology.

The lower gate is that preferred by strictly practical teachers—men who, like Gautama Buddha, have no use for speculation and whose primary concern is to put out in men's hearts the hideous fires of greed, resentment, and infatuation. Through the upper gate go those whose vocation it is to think and speculate —the born philosophers and theologians. The middle gate gives entrance to the exponents of what has been called 'spiritual religion' —the devout contemplatives of India, the Sufis of Islam, the Catholic mystics of the later Middle Ages, and, in the Protestant tradition, such men as Denk and Franck and Castellio, as Everard and John Smith and the first Quakers and William Law (Huxley 1947, 07).

Apart from being a subscriber of the Perennial Philosophy, Nasr is also a follower of Jalal al-din Rumi. Nasr explains him as a “vast sea into which all the streams of earlier Islamic Spirituality had flown so that his rapport with the earlier Sufi tradition was not merely scholarly and formal” (Nasr 1974, 05). Nasr mentions that Rumi was essential and experiential in a sense that he contained within himself the earlier Sufi tradition and was more familiar about all the spiritual personalities of his age. Through Rumi’s Diwan and Mathnawi, several Sufis and saints shine and re-interred into the realm of Islamic spirituality. The earliest saints of Islam such as Bāyāzīd al-Bastamī, Hallāj, Dhu'l-Nūn al-Misrī, Ma’rūf al-Karkhī and Abū'l-Hasan al-Kharraqānī, and later Sufis like Ibn Arabi were significantly identified in Rumi’s works. He accepted and gained mutual understanding with Ibn Arabi’s conception of Wahdat al- Wujud, the transcendental unity of Being. It is the central doctrine in Sufism and is clearly discernible from his poetry. Rumi follows Ibn Arabi in “believing

that the existence of everything is identical with the relation of that particular being to Being Itself, that existents are nothing but the relation they possess to the Absolute” (Ibid. 08). This metaphysics was later developed by several Islamic philosophers like Mullā Sadra and others. This spiritual work is reflected throughout the writings of Rumi and it is why Rumi is considered as the essential figure in Sufism. It also becomes a reason for Nasr to adopt Rumi’s Philosophy and to propagate perennial philosophy that not only counters the modernism and its allied ideologies but also puts Nasr in a position where he is being evaluated in the same line of Mystic and Sufi people.

3.5 Nasr’s Conception of Spirituality

Spirituality may have different meanings for different religions and individuals but we will discuss here only the Islamic perspective. Some Muslims call spirituality rabbaniyat and explain it as the “elevation of the human condition to a plane on which the mind is focused on the higher, non-material realities of a godly existence” (Khan 2015, 10). Khan considers it as opposed to materialism. People who believe in the worldly things are considered as materialistic and those who focus on the non-materialistic things are regarded as being spiritual. Other Spiritualists describe spirituality with the Qur’ānic word ‘Ruh’ (soul) which is mentioned several times in the Qur’ān and is from the command of the God. As opposite to body, ruh is considered ‘holy’. The Holy Spirit means Ruh-al Qudus which is equated with the ‘Divine Presence’. Therefore, spirituality is described as an effort to free oneself from worldly attachments and imperfections and reach the level of the Spirit. Modern theologians describe ‘Spirit’ as a conscious law and living principle that comes from the realm of Divine command. The Divine power envelops it with an external existence (Saritopark 2018, 1-15). So, anything related to spirit, in Islam, is spirituality and is considered as a way of purity and clarity both in the Qur’ān and traditions of the Prophet. Islamic spiritual world is different and

beyond this physical world and it have various practices based on the Qur’ān, Prophet, essential rituals, and Sufism; the inner dimension of Islam like prayer, contemplation and supplication (Saritopark 2018, 02). These activities are performed for the purpose of making a connection with the Divine and for the purification of heart and spirit. So, it is the method of psychological concentration where there is a deep focus on the spiritual connection with the Prophet, and eventually with God. This method is performed frequently so one can attain closeness with the Divine.

In this connection, the spiritual life for Nasr is not to be known or studied; it is to be lived, as he once remarked in an interview with Ramin Jahanbegloo (Nasr 2010, 166-167). According to him, the aim of spiritual writings is to lead people to the practice of spiritual life. All these teachings are written by the spiritual masters, including him had the same goal to live a spiritual life in this world. This aspect of living a spiritual life and studying Sufism has been seen in Nasr from his early age and it appears now as well. He endorses readers to practice it in its original sense as it was and it is important while dealing with the Nasr’s thought to be conscious of his deeply spiritual rootedness which he explained as:

Spirituality in itself is what the word itself reveals, that is, to be in contact with the world of the Spirit, and that transcends all particularities of the human state and of the material world…What is primary in spirituality is inwardness, the inward dimension which connects the human being inwardly to the Divine Truth and all of those external consequences, including love for others, or creation of poetry, or feeding the poor, flow from that inner realization (Nasr 2010, 168).

Thus, for Nasr, spirituality is the path through which man purifies his heart from the worldliness and showing love for nature and others. Spirituality leads man close to the Divine and distances from the materialistic world through the practice of rituals to gain the spiritual harmony and peace. The nature of this

one Reality is that it cannot be directly and immediately grasped except by those who make themselves pure in soul and pure in heart and all that is possible only when one follows Spiritual ways especially the Sufi method.

Despite the importance of spirituality in Islamic tradition, there are several Islamic scholars whose viewpoint differs on certain practices and rituals. They claim that Sufism does not give much importance to the practical dimensions of Islam; it only emphasizes the internal qualities rather than the external rituals. Whereas in opposition to this, Sufi and Mystic Scholars counter this claim. They point out that non-spiritualists give undue importance to the external practice of religion and less importance to the inner dimension. Nasr’s Spiritual Philosophy, on the other hand, tends to be inclusive. He emphasises on both internal (batin) and external (dhair) practices of Islam. Besides his strong opposition to modernism, it is one major factor that Nasr became a prominent figure among traditionalists. Further, his attempt to perform a dialogue with the other religions, especially with Christian and Hindu theologians, to restore spirituality became the hallmark of Nasr’s popularity.

3.6 Religious Pluralism

The deep involvement of Nasr in Traditional philosophy raises some questions. The question of Tradition or Traditions, its multiplicity and authenticity are the main questions. Regarding the multiplicity of religions, Nasr talks about the ‘Primordial Tradition’ which he says is the one and is always a single truth and origin of all truths:

The multiplicity of religious forms implies the multiplicity of traditions, while one also speaks of the Primordial Tradition or Tradition as such in the same way that there is one Sophia perennis but many religions in which it is to be found in different forms…. From a certain point of view, there is but one Tradition, the Primordial Tradition, which always is. It is the single truth which is at once the

heart and origin of all truths. All traditions are earthly manifestations of celestial archetypes related ultimately to the immutable archetype of the Primordial Tradition in the same way that all revelations are related to the Logos or the Word, which was at the beginning and which is at once an aspect of the Universal Logos and the Universal Logos as such. (Nasr 1989, 68).

The main postulate of Nasr, or of any traditionalist philosophy for that matter, is the existence of one Divine source for all religions which is esoterically the same but exoterically different. However, the traditionalists hold a common view that all religions have deviated from its original doctrines. Now, the question here is the claim of Nasr about religious pluralism. He believes that every tradition should be left alone, while others generally suggest a reform. Nasr not only considers religion as the faith of the people but accepts it as a reality of the Divine origin. For him, ‘if it ceases to exist on earth that does not mean that it would cease to possess any reality whatsoever’ (Nasr 2007, 22). In addition, Nasr explains that Traditionalists not only ignore the social and psychological aspects of religion, but they also completely deny bringing it down to the social and psychological manifestation (Nasr 2007, 22). Their claim is that its efficaciousness may deviate but the archetypal reality will continue to exist. Nasr refuses to accept the modern rationalist and the empiricist stand on Reality. For him, modernist always look it as a blurred image throughout the ages, they did not understand its real essence, but in against to this traditionalist held a stand on Reality as it was originally revealed and cultivated in religion. It is the fact that traditionalists had to some extent, maintain the distance from the modern scholars of the religion. Nasr, as a prominent figure among traditionalists has made it easy to understand the pluralism and Universalism of tradition. He remarks:

The school of the philosophia perennis speaks of tradition and traditions. It believes that there is a Primordial Tradition which constituted original or archetypal man’s primal spiritual and

intellectual heritage received through direct revelation when Heaven and earth were still “united.” This Primordial Tradition is reflected in all later traditions, but the later traditions are not simply its historical and horizontal continuation. Each tradition is marked by a fresh vertical descent from the Origin, a revelation which bestows upon each religion lying at the center of the tradition in question its spiritual genius, fresh vitality, uniqueness, and the “grace” that makes its rites and practices operative, not to speak of the paradisal vision which constitutes the origin of its sacred art, or of the sapience which lies at the heart of its message. But because the Origin is One and also because of the profound unity of the human recipient, despite important existing racial, ethnic, and cultural differences, the fact that there is both the Primordial Tradition and traditions does not destroy the perennity and universality of the philosophia perennis (Nasr 2007, 22-23).

Nasr and other traditionalists, like Adnan Aslan, describe an account of Islamic pluralism through the Qur’ānic sources. They accept the universality and diversity of God’s revelation to humanity. They believe that more or less to every civilization a messenger was sent to convey the reality. Although their message was not identical in the theological form, it was within the cultural context in a specific form of that community on which the revelation was revealed. Whatever they spoke, they spoke about the same truth. Several Muslim pluralists argue that some of them were mentioned in the Qur’ān and some not, but they talk about the same reality. In their understanding, the God of the Qur’ān is not only the God of the Muslim people but the God of all humanity (Rub al-Alamin) (Aslan 2011, 35). The Qur’ānic verse that explains God is: ‘Unto Allah belong the East and West, and whithersoever you turn, there is Allah's countenance. For Allah is All-Embracing, All-knowing’ (Al- Qur’ān 2: 115). Another verse of the Qur’ān explains diversity as: ‘O Humankind! Verily we have created you of a male and female, and we have distributed you in nations and tribes that you might know one another and

recognize that in the sight of God the most honorable of you is the most pious. Verily God is wise and all-knowing (Al-Qur’ān, 49:13).

On the basis of these Qur’ānic verses, Islamic traditionalists explain the place of pluralism in Islam. However, their aim is to integrate all the forces into unity with the help of these sacred principles of Islam into one single faith. It is clear that Qur’ān does not allow man-made discrimination like on the basis of race, color, geographical division and tribe. According to the verse just cited, these are to know each other and understand the signs and majesty of God. God introduces himself in the first chapter of the first verse of the Qur’ān as Rab al- Alamin, that is, Lord of all creatures including all humans regardless of their ethnic, linguistic, geographical, cultural and religious affiliations. In the same manner, God expresses himself in the last chapter of the Qur’ān as Rab al-naas (Lord of mankind), Malik al-naas (King of mankind), and Ilah al-naas (God of mankind). Therefore, the Qur’ānic conception of God in Islam is not racial deity nor will He evaluate humans on the above grounds. God describes Himself for the whole mankind, and not just for Muslims or any particular race; for Him, He is for all and all are for Him.

With all these mentioned references Nasr show that pluralism exists in the very nature of Islam. While Sufis explain it in a different manner, they are not against this ‘pure’ nature of Islam. Several other verses are found in Qur’ān that deals with the human diversity in terms of color, ethnicity, language and religion in explicit and implicit manner. Also, there are a number of verses which deal with tolerance and intolerance to the system of belief. Hence, the basic sources of the Islam give space to pluralism.

It is important to mention that there are several aspects in every religion which are different in essence and practice than others. The concept of salvation, for example, is different in Islam than in Buddhism and Christianity. The Islamic notion of salvation is simple in the sense that Muslims believe that every human being was born in this world as a Tabula rasa, meaning without

sins, but with the innate religiosity al-fitrah. If one follows his or her innate religiosity and message of Allah, he/she will be saved in the hereafter (Aslan 2011, 40).

Nasr’s notion of tradition or perennial philosophy is a form of religious pluralism. His writings emphasise on an interreligious dialogue to restore love and peace in the world. But, according to him, this is not enough. What is needed today for the society is the mutual understanding, unity, and empathy between the religions and that is not possible on the formal level. However, he explains that each form of religion is distinctive, exclusive and sacred as all come from heaven, but through this method, harmony is not possible. It needs a supra formal level, which will bring the harmony, and that level is the inner, esoteric dimension of each religion; for Islam, he says it is Sufism. The prominent Sufi figures which Nasr mentions Ibn Arabi, Rumi, Al-Biruni, and others, who see Truth (Haqq) in forms other than those of their own religion. Apart from these, the prominent Sufis maintained that there must be only one single Truth and that single Truth must have manifested itself in all the different authentic religious universes (Nasr 2010, 290-291).

3.7 Modern and Theological Critique of Pluralism

The most common flaw in all the forms of religious pluralism is that all religious teachings seem to be in conflict and inconsistent with each other, and with religious pluralism, in any case, whether we look at their esoteric or exoteric doctrines. In view of this inconsistency and conflicting nature of traditions, Pluralists are compelled to guarantee that these logical inconsistencies are either because of adulteration in the religious conventions or are because of inessential components (culture, for example). This type of claim is not patronized by religion. However, in Islamic teachings, there are some grounds on which religious pluralism of traditionalists can be rejected. The biggest challenge for religious pluralism in Islam is that it does not accept idol worship at any cost. Simply, the first principle of Islam deliberates clearly

‘there is no God except Allah and Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) is His messenger’. Islamic tradition does not allow any Muslim to worship someone other than Allah. Anybody who does that is considered infidel, a Kafir or Mushrik. There are practical differences too between religions. A comparison may be made between Islam and Hinduism. Islam envisions a kind of egalitarian idea of the society in which no bias is made on the grounds of social standing, race, colour and occupation or any other man-made consideration. But, Islam did not give choice to people what faith or religion they want to choose. It continuously stresses that ‘right path’ followers will be rewarded and ‘wrong path’ followers will be punished. Simply wrong path followers refer to those who have not embraced Islam as a true religion. One more important difference is that Islam does not accept priesthood. While on the other hand, idol worship, priesthood and cast system is practised in polytheistic traditions such as Hinduism.

For Nasr, Pluralistic acceptance of the esoteric unity of all religions is a core feature of the perennial philosophy (Legenhausen 2018). But pluralism clashes with Islamic teachings. In the light of this fact, Islam presents itself as the last and conclusive religion for humanity and not as culture-bound, while pluralism sees the contrasts among Islam and different traditions to be because of cultural accidents. The question is where the criterion for the religious truth is to be found? In Islam, the criterion is given in God’s final Revelation to man, while as per traditionalism it is something to be abstracted by intellectual intuition through a comparative interpretation of the world’s esoteric religious teachings (Legenhausen. 2002, 08). In this sense Islamic traditional or modern scholars have a different standpoint on religious pluralism. There seems to be no unity among them on this issue, however both are referring the Qur’ānic sources to prove their standpoint.

3.8 Religious Fundamentalism

During the recent decades a new movement started within religions and side by side with modernism; this has been called ‘Fundamentalism’. There are diverse views on the issue, and it is believed that the term was first developed by the Western journalism for the radical Christians and now is used for radical Muslims and as well as for Islamic ‘Fundamentalists’. The term has got much attention after the crisis in the world either in the form of opposing Westernisation or forcefully imposing the Islamic Law (Shari̒ah) or any reformist movement of the Islamic Law whether it is initiated by a Sunni or a Shi’a sect. One could also say that any religious group which shows signs of modernity or deviation from the traditional norms and a kind of rigidity towards other religious belief, could be also labelled as fundamentalist.

Nasr’s traditional philosophy differentiates him from Islamic fundamentalists. According to him, in the name of reforms, these movements have weakened and impoverished traditional Islam. He explains them as a short form of traditional Islam and a kind of extremism such as Wahhabism or the Deoband school of India (Nasr 1994, 12). Besides this, there are a number of movements within traditions standing firmly for the reviving of the tradition in opposition to modernism. Nasr talks about them as:

There is not only the modernist trend standing against the traditional but also a whole series of movements which speak of reviving Islam in opposition to modernism and that very Western civilization which, for several centuries, served as the soil in which modernism grew and was nurtured. It is precisely at this moment of history that it is crucial to distinguish these movements which have come to be called the 'new fundamentalism', or simply 'Islamic fundamentalism', from traditional Islam, with which they are often confused (Nasr 1994, 13).

Nasr strongly opposes such movements and believes that they are mere offshoots of modernism, the ‘types of politico-religious movements’, (Nasr

1994, 13) now branded as fundamentalism, which is totally different from the traditional Islam. However, their interpretation of Islam is in many ways very similar to the traditional Islam. The sharp distinction drawn by Nasr in these two opposites, i.e., fundamentalist and traditionalist, is that the traditional societies were seen in an integrated worldview centered upon religious belief, but the modern societies based on the principles of fundamentalism have lost the idea of integration. He holds modernism responsible for this disintegration of the society, which has shown an unclear and confused message in religions. He further says, “It is precisely because the very nature of modernism creates in the religious and metaphysical realms a blurred image within which half- truths appear as the truth itself and the integrity of all that tradition represents is thereby compromised” (Nasr 1994, 14). All these movements, either within the tradition or from outside of it, that Nasr calls ‘counter-traditional and pseudo- traditional’, become opposed to authentic tradition (Nasr 1994, 18). Although he accepts some outwardly similarities between the two, his critique accuses fundamentalists as brutish and unworthy. On the other side, he considers traditionalists as authentic and refined. He explains the differences very clearly while comparing them to each other on the basis of their acceptance of the authentic sources. He remarks:

The traditionalist and the so-called ‘fundamentalist’ meet in their acceptance of the Qur’ān and Hadith, as well as in their emphasis upon the Shari'ah, but even here the differences remain profound. As already mentioned, tradition always emphasizes the sapiental commentaries and the long tradition of Qur’ānic hermeneutics in understanding the meaning of the verses of the Sacred Text; whereas so many of the 'fundamentalist' movements simply pull out a verse from the Qur’ān and give it a meaning in accordance with their goals and aims, often reading into it a meaning alien to the whole tradition of Qur’ānic commentary, or tafsir. As for the Shari'ah, tradition always emphasizes, in contrast to so much of current ‘fundamentalism’, faith, inner attachment to the dicta of the Divine Law and the traditional

ambience of lenient judgment based upon the imperfections of human society, rather than simply external coercion based on fear of some human authority other than God (Nasr 1994, 18).

The fundamentalists’ and modernists’ attitude towards the form of government varies: some want to revive the Caliphate, others have supported traditional forms like Sultanate, and still, such as the Jamat-i-Islami choose democracy in the Islamic context (Nasr 1994, 85-86). However, Nasr agrees that all of them more or less accept Western sciences, philosophy, and technology which has impoverished traditional Islam. Nasr, thus, criticizes fundamentalists for accepting scientific progress without seeing its consequences, and contends that their opposition to the West and modernization is limited to theory only:

Their attitude to science and technology is in fact nearly identical with that of the modernists, as seen on the practical plane in the attitude of Muslim countries with modern forms of government compared to those which claim to possess one form or another of Islamic government. There is hardly any difference in the manner in which they try to adopt modern Western technology, from computers to television, without any thought for the consequences of these inventions upon the mind and soul of Muslims (Nasr 1994, 19).

In art and politics, Nasr similarly distinguishes traditionalism and fundamentalism as done earlier by Coomaraswamy and others. Generally, in art, everything traditional is supposed to be beautiful for Nasr, while the fundamentalist is tasteless, ugly and horrific (Nasr 1994, 20).

In the sphere of politics, Nasr opposes fundamentalists for accepting the Western political ideas and institutions, including “revolution, republicanism, ideology and even class struggle in the name of a supposedly pure Islam” (Nasr 1994, 21). These arose in Europe and purportedly adulterated the pure Islam. According to him, the inner side of tradition is religious fundamentalism, which we discussed above and the outside of it is modernism, but both for him

are variants of extremism. However, he admits that in fundamentalism there is a section which is close to tradition and another which is extremely opposed to it. Despite the basic difference between them, they share a common disdain for westernization and modern science. Both of them show distrust on external elements that oppose the inner aspect of Islam like Sufism, Islamic art, and philosophy. The aim of both was to reconstruct and revive the image of Islam, which was supposedly contaminated by modern science and philosophy “through the inner purification or by removing the philosophical and intellectual impediments which have been obstacles on the path of many contemporary Muslims” (Nasr 1994, 84).

The above portrayal, in any case, does not empower us to distinguish between the so-called fundamentalists from traditional Muslim groups, for there are Muslim groups that have been against intellectualist and philosophical movements. Then again, there are progressive Muslims who have been philosophers and spiritualists. It goes to their credit that Guénonian Traditionalists are interested in mysticism, philosophy, and art, but that does not distinguish them from other Muslims who do not agree with their ideological principles.

Nasr argues that the most important difference between the two groups is that the traditionalist is too ‘perfect’ to reject everything that is modern and Western, while the fundamentalist seems to be less moderate. Another difference, he goes on to say, is that the fundamentalists are political, social, economic, tasteless, crude and rude, and man-made i.e., unauthentic; whereas the traditionalists insist upon Shari’ite institutions and political institutions such as Caliphate and Sultanate and moreover unity in family and society. These are considered as authentic and divine (Nasr 1994, 17). He observes:

Traditionalists oppose the gaining of worldly power and any surrender to worldliness in the name of Islam, always remembering the Qur’ānic injunction that the other world is preferable for you over this world.

While accepting the fact that Islam does not separate the religious from the ‘secular’ domain, traditional Islam refuses to sacrifice the means for the end and does not accept as legitimate the use of any and every possible political machination appropriated from completely anti- Islamic sources in order to gain power in the name of Islam. Moreover, traditional Islam does not condone intoxication fomented by hatred and anger any more than it does one caused by alcohol; nor does it see such a self-righteous and intoxicating hatred as a legitimate substitute for the need to solve the intellectual, moral and social problems which the Islamic world faces today (Nasr 1994, 21-22).

Nasr’s main address to modernity is in relation to Islam and he considers modernism not only a religious issue but a political, social and economic as well. His suggestion is that Islam is a viable option to help solve the problems of modern humanity if the principles of Islamic tradition are properly applied. According to him, it is modernistic forces, which changed, altered, adjusted or improved the Islamic message to suit present-day conditions and to be capable of adjusting to the modern world so as to challenge the Western control. Out of this state of mind developed the distinctive kinds of modernism affected by the French Revolution and the rationalism of Descartes and Voltaire, and later on Locke, Hume, Spencer and Bergson. In other Muslim dominated places such as Arab, Indian subcontinent, Turkey, and Persia, liberalism and modernistic developments were also the results of the enslavement of the Islamic world by the West (Nasr 1994, 81). This subjugation and acceptance of modern Western perspective threatens traditional cultures of Muslim nations; they feel inferior in front of these forces, and hence adopt them easily. The other factor responsible for the weakening of the traditional Islam and acceptance of western principles was the internal conflict, sectarian clashes, authenticity of sources. However, Nasr accepts the fact that there are some who show common disdain for the Western modernism and try “to reconstruct the Islamic society through the re-establishment of external legal and social norms rather than by

means of the revival of Islam through inner purification or by removing the philosophical and intellectual impediments which have been obstacles on the path of many contemporary Muslims” (Nasr 1994, 84).

This modern phenomenon had developed a strong materialistic greed among societies that lost all values of the traditional societies. Religious values have completely weakened and bought new kind of illness among people. The modern man loses control over their materialistic greed which was bonded with religious values. Now, in its place, a substitute has been created in the form of modern ethics or modernity which Nasr believes has done nothing but is working as a pseudo-religion. The new gods are such idols like development and progress, who not only control human passion but also increase it day by day (Nasr 2007, 33). Nasr explains that such type of development of ideas like the ‘Promethean Man’ was never allowed in any religion particularly in Islam, that is:

A man isolated from any responsibility to a world beyond himself, to the sacred, to God, to the ultimate reality, and to nature. This is the man who is his own boss, who runs the world and who dominates the world as he wills. I have called such a person Promethean Man because of the myth of Prometheus which has both a positive and negative aspect. The negative aspect is very important for us to realize. Prometheus was the man who stole fire from heaven despite the gods; in a sense, he rebelled against heaven and was punished, therefore. This idea of Promethean Man was never allowed to develop in Islam (Nasr 1991, 124).

From the traditional point of view, it is difficult to understand in the modern mindset how rituals have a relation with the nature of physical realities. Modern man considers rituals as personal, individual and subjective; however, traditionalists consider them as God-made which have descended from the Heaven. Nasr explains “A ritual is an enactment or rather re-enactment here on

earth of a Divine prototype” (Nasr 2007, 34). By this he means that rituals act as a law to bind humans on the earth with religion in a sense to preserve its nature and other aspects. These rituals, the traditionalists believe, have a Divine origin and are not invented or man-made and it is impossible to live in harmony with Nature without the ritualized relationship with the natural world. To live in harmony with the Nature, Nasr suggests, we have to return to our own traditional sources such as Hindu to Hinduism and Muslim to Islam and so forth. Here, Nasr implies a return to ritualistic sacrifices of Hinduism, not in the Vedic sense, but in the fact that the cosmos itself is the result of a sacrifice- the sacrifice of purusha. This corresponds to the Islamic parlance to the universal man, or to logos in the Christian doctrine perhaps. Further, Nasr says:

In addition to this metaphysical doctrine of the sacrifice, in India, which is at the foundation and origin of the Vedic religion and also the cosmology that issues from the Vedas, there is the idea of the sacredness of all life. Everyone talks about Hinduism being a religion in which all life is sacred and so many of the animals are sacred for one reason or another, starting from the cow, the monkeys, certain birds, snakes, etc. It is therefore strange that a civilization, one of the world's major spiritual and artistic civilizations, in which life is so sacred, the animals do not die by going to the slaughter house but by just breathing the air (Nasr 1991, 122).

Nasr describes through the Hindu philosophy the sacredness and the ritualistic importance of this world but, in response to this, he mentioned that Modernists have not maintained any relation with Nature nor did they give any legitimacy to the religious knowledge of Nature. The result was the loss of the way of studying Nature through the religious sense. Nasr further suggests that to overcome this problem it is imperative to recognize the difference between metaphysical and material knowledge.

Since the origin of the industrial revolution, there have been a number of voices which proclaimed that society and culture had taken a wrong turn and that something valuable was being destroyed and lost. Some critics of modernity focused on the social problems of modern life, while others on the crisis and its drastic change in society as well as on environmental conditions. Usually, it is argued that social problems of modernity are a result of the negligence of some important truths. For many Islamic philosophers, especially Nasr, modern crisis is due to moving away from the traditional teaching of Islam. For the Catholics, modern woes are due to the neglect of the teachings of the Church; for Hindus, modern arose out of the neglect of their traditional values.

Nasr expresses his philosophical thought of Nature and the role of Man in Nature in a poetic sense. His meditation on the subject has vastly described its importance in the contemporary times. He expresses his view thus: O Lord thou didn't not create the cosmos nor placed us here on earth in vain. Our journey of life is impregnated with meaning so rich that it inundates not only our whole being but also the being of thy creatures who surround us in our earthly journey. It is true that we are travellers in this world, passing like members of a caravan for fleeting moments on this beautiful earth between the gates of life and death. But this enchanted nature which surrounds us in our earthly journey is not simply the background for the trajectory of our life. Nature is above all a reflection Of the paradise whose memories we still bear in the depth of our soul and whose beatitude in thy proximity we seek at the end of our journey of many nights and days. That is why only those whose inner being belongs to the paradisal abode can see thy Creation crowned in its paradisal aura while those who have abandoned thee and so reside in that hell

which is none other than separation from thee, turn thy Creation into an inferno. Thou hast set upon us the responsibility of not only caring for creation but also of acting as the channel of thy grace for the creatures who surround us in the journey of life. We thereby affect their state of being as they, in turn, aid us in bearing testimony to thy wisdom and beauty in the face of thy presence. And so did thy last prophet utter. O Lord, show us things as they really are, of the Prophet for to be shown things as they really are is to see them not as brute facts for opaque objects but as thy sign of thy ubiquitious presence. Help us to remain always aware of the spiritual face of the created order and to rest in the remembrance of the basic truth uttered in thy sacred book —whither soever you turn there is the face of God. Indeed all things in thy virginal creation Are reflections of thy face which we defile at the cost of the greatest peril to our immortal soul as well as to our earthly life. Save us, therefore, from ourselves and all that prevents us from seeing thy presence in the lofty mountains and the sparkling springs, in the starry heavens and the abandoned song of the bird, in the never- ending waves of the sea and the innocent glance of the newly born. Verily thou dids't not create the heavens and the earth in vain. (Nasr 1991, 127-128)

The poem reflects Nasr’s philosophy and how he views the love of Nature and the importance of existence of man on this planet which was intended to have some meaning. The life of humans is supposed to be so purposeful that it could provide reasons for living, not only to them but to all other creatures who populate earth. No doubt, humans are travelers in this world who spend their lives like the members of a caravan of passing moments starting at the door of life and ending at the gate of death.

Nasr believes that the enthralling Nature that surrounds us is not just any background scenery for the path of our life. It is actually the reflection of those memories of paradise which are still ingrained in us and wired into our memories. There are memories of beauty which used to be in proximity (in paradise). We seek here in the world that reflection, that beauty at the end of our life, which means we constantly try to search for that beauty during our life-times.

The main purpose of the writings of Nasr, with respect to the above subject, is to accept reality the way it was revealed to us, and not how it is understood through modern perspective completely averse to it. The poem is a kind of message for the religious loving people to understand the importance of Heavens and their role with it.

3.9 Conclusion

In this chapter, we have reviewed the major themes that emerge in Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s thought. The internal and external elements of Traditionalism have been discussed. Traditionalist thoughts of Sufis and Spiritualists in Islam as well as those of Fundamentalists, Extremists and the Secularists through Nasr’s eyes have been analysed. Through this discussion, it may be concluded that Nasr defends all that is Tradition and its followers and rejects Modernism and Western sciences in many ways. One is based on Scriptures; Revelation and belief systems while the other on modern philosophy and scientific temper. Nasr, however, does not completely rejects the benefits of modern science; what he rejects is the absolutization of Man, and the materialistic nature of science which disregards sacred reality and reduces Nature to mere quantity and mechanical relationship in contrast to what the traditional man had considered it in East. Secondly, Nasr opposes the West for only embracing the Western philosophy based on Western science and neglecting Eastern philosophy which for him is based on Divine sources. Nasr accepts the fact that the Western religions such as Christianity and Judaism were sharing a common

philosophy with the East but since Renaissance they were adulterated with modern science. As a result, modern science is now working as a religion for the West. The West decides everything on the basis of science, be it ethics, society, politics, economy, environment, ecology or climate (this will be discussed in the next chapter). Hence, everything is measured with the same scale of West and Western science. This trend, Nasr asserts, has not left any space for the traditional science which was nature-friendly.

Hence, Nasr and his group of traditionalists critiqued modernism and highlighted that modernism is an epistemological phenomenon, not ontological. Here, modern epistemologist mean modernism as a ‘positivism’ that is only sensorialy apprehended knowledge is knowledge and by implicating only sensorialy apprehended objects. These sensorial objects they mean real objects and there is nothing other than these objects. Furthermore, modernists believe that the entire movement of traditionalism was developed by these thinkers during the modernistic period; hence, it is a by-product of modernism. Therefore, according to them, when traditionalism condemns every ideology or product that emerged from modernity, it is self-defeating because it implicitly condemns itself. From the modernistic point of view, tradition itself cannot be made a scale for evaluation nor has it given an alternative to benefit or reform the society. Yet, traditionalists, by rejecting modernization, development, and scientific age on theological grounds, have succeeded in pointing out some important faults in the modernity. The point is that there is much that is good in modernity, and much that is good in traditional societies and vice versa. Ideologically pitted against each other, these obvious facts seem to be ignored by both Traditionalists and Modernists.

References:

Aslan, Adnan. Religious Pluralism in Christian and Islamic Philosphy; The Thought of John Hick and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon Taylor & Francis Group, 2005.

Aslan, Adnan. "Religious Pluralism In Islam." Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization (Fall), 2011: 35-47.

Chittick, William C. ed. The Essential Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Canada: World Wisdom, 2007.

Huxley, Aldous. The Perennial Philosophy. London: Chatto and windus, 1947.

Kalin, Ibrahim. The Sacred versus the Secular: Nasr on Science. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy Of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Randall E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone, Jr. Lewis Edwin Hahn. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company The library of Living Philosophers, 2001.

Khan, Wahiduddin. "Spirituality in Islam; an Intellectual Process." Spirit of Islam; Towards Spiritual Living (Fathima Sarah), no. 26 (February 2015): 10-17.

Legenhausen, Muhammad. Al-Islam.Org. November tuesday, 2018. https://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol14-n4/misgivings-about- religious-pluralisms-seyyed-hossein-nasr-and-john-hick-dr-

Legenhausen, Hajj Muhammad. "Why I Am Not a Traditionalist." URL: https://english.religion.info/2002/03/31/document-why-i-am-not-a- traditionalist/

Lings, Martin. What is Sufism? Lahore: Suhail Academy Lahore Pakistan, 2005.

Merriam-Webster Inc. Merriam-Webster, Since 1828. 2018. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition (accessed November 11, 2018).

Monastra, Giovannil. Seyyed Hossein Nasr: Religion Nature and Science. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed hossein Nasr, edited by Randalle E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone, JR. Lewis Edwin Hahn. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company: The Library of Living Philosophers, 2001.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. In Search of the Sacred; A Conversation with Seyyed Hossein Nasr on His Life and Thought. Edited by Ramin Jahanbegloo. California: Praeger, ABC-CLIO, LLC Santa Barbara, California, 2010.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Intellectual Autobiography of Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Randall E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone lewis Edwin Hahn. Chicago: Library of living Philosophers, Open Court Publishing Company, 2001.

—. Knowledge and the Sacred. New York: Albany, State University of New York Press, 1989.

—. Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1968.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. "Reflections on Islam and Modern Thought." Studies in Comparative Religion (World Wisdom, Inc.) 15, no. 3 & 4 (1983).

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. "Religion and Environmental Crisis: An Oriental Overview." India International Centre Quarterly (India International Centre) 18, no. 1 (1991): 113-128.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. "Rumi and the Sufi Tradition." Studies in Comparative Religion (World Wisdom, Inc.) 8, no. 2 (1974): 1-18.

—. Sufi Essays. London: Schocken books, 1977.

—. The Heart of Islam, Enduring Values for Humanity. UK: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2004.

—. Traditional Islam in the Modern World. London: Kegan Paul International, 1994.

Oldmeadow, Harry. Frithof Schuon and the Perennial Philosophy. Bloomington, Indiana: World Wisdom, Inc., 2010.

Pickthall, Muhammad Marmaduke. The Holy Qur'aan With English translation. Lahore Pakistan: Qudrat Ullah Co.

Quadir, Tariq M. Traditional Islamic Environmentalism, The Vision of Seyyed Hossein Nasr. UK: University press of America, 2013.

Saritopark, Zeki. Islamic Spirituality; Theology and Practice for the Modern World. USA: Bloomsbury, 2018.

Schuon, Frithjof. The Transcendent Unity of Religions. Chennai: Quest Books, Theosophical Publishing House, wheaton, 2005.

Schwencke, A.M. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Traditionalism, Islamic Esotericism & Environmental Ethics. Leiden, Netherland: Unpublished BA dissertation Leiden University Netherland, 2009.

Shah, Nasir Ahmad. "Analysing Seyyed Hossein Nasr's Approach to the Clash of Traditionalism and Modernity." Research Guru; Online Journal of Multidisciplinary Subjects (Research Guru) 12, no. 2 (September 2018): 604-610.

Ubudiyyat, A. R. An Introduction to Mulla Sadrā’s Theosophical System: Ontology and Cosmology. Vol. 1. 2007.

Upton, Charles. "What is a “Traditionalist”? Some Clarifications." Sacred Web, A Journel of Tradition and Modernity.

http://www.sacredweb.com/online_articles/sw17_upton.html

CHAPTER IV SEYYED HOSSEIN NASR’S CRITIQUE OF MODERNISM

4.1 Environmental Crisis: An outcome of Modernism

After going through the works of Nasr, it is ample to discuss his views and the relational paradigms that arise as a critique to Modernism. Nasr, being a traditionalist seems to have a full conviction in traditionalism as a natural order of the world. His belief that modernity ruins the world, man and his relations with God and nature shapes his critical evaluations of Modernism. The environmental interest sparked in Nasr during the Harvard years and he calls it major philosophical occupation of his life. His awareness for the environmental crisis occur in US during the 1960’s inspired by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), which Nasr credits as a source of consciousness. Then he formulated his environmental and theological philosophy in 1966 when he delivered the Rockefeller lecture at the University of Chicago, later published it under the title The Encounter of Man and Nature. This work had developed strength in the thought of Nasr. The main aim of his thought is all religions especially the Western countries need to recover a traditional Christian cosmology of nature in order to recover its lost spiritual vision of nature which recognizes its sacred quality as created by God and symbolic of God.

In his view, few centuries ago, before the period of Renaissance, Nature was seen as beautiful and man was harmonious with it but, the rapid growth of technology and industrialization poured in its harmful effects which created fear on earth for further survival of life. Modern man has threatened Nature with the power of scientific knowledge and technology that actually led to his detachment from nature. For Nasr, the relation between man and Nature was not in that sense as we observe now as phenomenal. The Greeks accepted it not as phenomena but in mathematical relations, which themselves possessed an ontological status. Nasr explains the positivistic interpretation of science is, “in reality, an aim to de-ontologize science completely not by shifting the 93 ontological status from the physical domain to the Pythagorean-Platonic world of archetypes connected with mathematics, but by denying its ontological significance completely” (Nasr 1968, 25). So in this sense modern science has denied other conception of science and failed to grasp the true significance of ancient and medieval cosmologies. For Nasr, nowadays this issue has gained importance to study the historic roots of science in academic disciplines, but instead of looking the manners in which these sciences are studied had much more glorifying the modern science. In fact modern science has been taken as the only legitimate and possible form of science of nature, and all other cosmological sciences have been considered either as early anticipations of this form of science or as deviations which have hindered modern science (Nasr 1968, 51). Nasr admitted that several science historians opposed the modern science and its manner of studying things. They wrote about the ancient and medieval sciences concept of matter and motion same as contemporary people held, but it is the only modern science which neglected the symbolic meaning of the ancient and medieval sciences.

In this part we have investigated Nasr's finding of the scholarly and spiritual crisis underlying the ecological crisis, and also his proposed answers for this crisis. He follows the foundations of the environmental crisis to the desacralization of nature in Western Europe, particularly during the Renaissance and Enlightenment. For him, it is the Modern European man ‘which he calls Promethean man’, is a desacralized form of mankind that uses science and technology without restriction to control and exploit nature for its very own gain. Nasr's opposition centers around an analysis of present day science, particularly the dualistic and robotic and mechanistic perspective of the world related with Rene Descartes and others. In any case, his critique additionally incorporates an analysis of historical Christianity, seeing that its response to Greek naturalism prompted a somewhat extreme split in its perspective between the natural and the supernatural. Nasr trusts the limit that Christianity put between the natural and supernatural empowered the advancement of a reductionist science in the West which adulterated nature and 94 tried to build up human mastery and control of nature. Nasr recognizes that the disequilibrium that happened by the ecological crisis has a deep indirect roots in western Christianity. His claim is in the sense that he want to deconstruct the present Christianity and once again reconstruct it in the older form when it was harmonious with Man and Nature. Indeed he says that Christianity has a strong capability of appreciation for the sacred quality of nature and the sacred duty of human beings to conserve and protect nature. Nasr acknowledges that the way Christianity developed in the West, in response against Greek naturalism, prompted a useless relationship between Western Christianity and nature. The study of nature was completely replaced in Christianity when Greek naturalism, empiricism and rationalism were widespread. Nasr says this has blinded men to the vision of God and the study of nature from the theological point of view did not occupy a central place in Western Christianity. It reacts with the naturalism but its reaction seems more problematic in nature.

Christianity, therefore, reacted against this naturalism by emphasizing the boundary between the supernatural and the natural and by making the distinction between the natural and supernatural so strict as to come near to depriving nature of the inner spirit that breathes through all things. To save the souls of men in the particular atmosphere in which it found itself, Christianity had to forget and neglect, or at least belittle, the theological and spiritual significance of nature (Nasr 1968, 55).

Nasr depicts Christianity's problematic response to the issue of naturalism as being unavoidable and forgivable. From one viewpoint, he accepts with the subordination of empiricism and realism to revelation, and seems to recognize this as some way or another important to the salvific mission of Christianity; on the other hand, he clearly regards the boundary line that Christianity drew between the natural and the supernatural as being too strict and unfortunate in its degradation of the spiritual value of nature. Nasr's contention is that Christianity's historic disregard of the spiritual values of nature is coincidental instead of fundamental, and can be revised going ahead by restoring mystical Christian tradition that recognize the Spirit in nature. For Nasr the distinction

95 and the boundary which Christianity drawn become problematic not only it separated nature from God, but also it did not effectively neutralize the problems of rationalism and humanism.

In light of the issue of reductionist science, Nasr affirms the requirement for a sacred science that re-establishes metaphysical sciences over the physical sciences. In light of the human sciences of Promethean or modern man, he spreads out his anthropological vision of Pontifical or traditional man, who serves as a bridge between heaven and earth and a channel of grace to resacralize the natural world. In this respect, Nasr particularly promotes the mystic or spiritual as the perfect type of man. Later he appeals for Christianity to re-establish its own tradition and to recover its spiritual vision of nature through dialogue with the other traditions of the eastern religions. For him, Christianity, Islam, and other traditional religions and spiritualties are only implicated in the ecological crisis insofar as they have failed to assert their spiritual visions of nature and ethics, and thus allowed modern reductionist science to usher in a worldview that desacralizes nature and absolutized humanity (Mevorach 2015, 116).

4.2 Man-Nature Relationship

The present crisis which Modern man is facing is his self-made problems, which cannot be solved through this scientific technology alone as for as Nasr is concerned, for him it needs a new code of conduct and Practical ethics based on environment. It needs a reconsideration of his acts and relation to earth and Nature. Moreover, modern man should search new alternatives for strong relation with Nature which would bring conscience in modern man to stop doing that job the principle of which lies on materialism and the race of which is never ending. However, the issue has gained much interest few decades ago, when man observes on one hand, “a nostalgia for the lost paradise and on the other a primitive fear of natural forces but also the urge to dominate Nature, which originated with the Renaissance (Bourdeau 2004, 10). The relationship between man and Nature has always been ambiguous, Nature being seen as

96 both friend and foe. The modern age has restricted study of environment only in the domain of modern science, however, it always consists culture, society and a Man-Nature relation. Moreover, culture, society and man are part of Nature, if we see the definition of it. “Nature is the whole of the physical world; it is also what exists outside of any human action. Man is in Nature but he acts upon it, thereby emancipating himself of it. He is part and apart of Nature” (Bourdeau 2004, 10).

For Nasr, present day science is at the core of the ecological crisis. The standards of desacralization and control of nature are understood in present day science and are in this manner essentially communicated in the technological applications of this science. Nasr's critique of present day science centers around Descartes, Newton, and the mechanical reductionist world view related with their hypotheses of the physical universe. In any case, Nasr's investigation of the problem of knowledge in Western thought traces the longer story of the decay of the fabric of Christian thought and the rebellion against God that began to emerge in intellectual and artistic circles in the Renaissance. In Nasr’s view, it was the weakening of the intellectual concept of God and of traditional Christian ideas about the universe that opened the door to a view which reduced nature to mere stuff and mechanism, devoid of any sacred character or content.

Nasr identifies scientific reductionism as the root cause of the ecological crisis originated from the West. Nasr was immune, to speak, from the simplistic reaction of many Western thinkers that there could be a technological fix to the ecological crisis. For Nasr, the ecological crisis is the fruit of scientific reductionism which has stripped the natural world of its connection to the sacred and left it as a meaningless assemblage of things that may be exploited for human gain using modern technology.

For Nasr human-Nature relationship has become a controversy in many Western countries. It was the time before the Renaissance, when the attitude of humans was respectful towards Nature. But, now, it has turned completely

97 reverse and only a few voices remain either from the natural sciences or humanities, who not only have shown their respectful attitude to Nature, but are trying hard to fight for its further survival. Hossein Nasr is one among them who not only opposes its causes but also suggests its alternate solution through following a traditional approach and by employing the discipline of the philosophy and history of science and religion.

Nasr underlines that the environmental crisis today is driven by the prevailing modern scientific paradigms, which since the scientific revolution gradually replaced pre-existing religious worldviews (Quadir 2013, 47). Today all human activities based on the modern scientific and technological lifestyle and economics are the main cause of the environmental crisis. Nasr primarily blames the Renaissance followed by the scientific revolution and the industrial revolution for the environmental crisis. For Nasr, the whole population on earth, be it the Christians, Hindus, Muslims or Atheists or for that matter the Communists, Socialists or the Capitalists have an equal share in destroying the natural environment (Nasr 2007, 29). The present environmental crisis is an outcome of following a particular kind of philosophy, a Philosophy that was born in the West and then spread throughout the globe. It is the West, which bears the primary responsibility for that modern philosophy which causes mass destruction of the environment and the traditions as well as religions. He observes that after the period of Renaissance world has seen a rise of secular humanism and the absolutization of the earthly man which was completely based on materialistic greed and thus had immeasurable bad consequences for both Nature and the traditions. The modern man, according to Nasr, is in a continuous process in subduing Nature and to gain more and more wealth and power (Nasr 1996, 04). This modern man has never maintained any kind of restrictions upon the domination of Nature and its forces. He distanced itself from all the religious principles which become the reason that all religions and religious knowledge of the order of Nature has lost its claim about the cosmos and has ceased to possess any legitimacy in the modern scientific paradigm.

Modern world has witness a new narrative of advancement of science in the West. Nasr portrays Western science's improvement as odd and unnatural. For Nasr the advancement of present day reductionist science isn't the consequence of a vital advancement or purification of thought, but instead the consequence of a peculiar and unnatural turn of scholarly occasions. Nasr claim that Western science, instead of replacing or updating all other different perspectives, it must relearn from traditional perspectives how to value the sacredness of nature. This shifting of traditional perspective of nature to modern become a strong wave in the west which Nasr sees now impossible to replace unless the traditional view of nature is restored. However, Nasr sees these tendencies were early developed by the rationalism and humanism but was later glorified during the Renaissance. Indeed these tendencies was new but destroyed the sacred view of nature of first Christianity and then other religions.

Nasr observed, the ecological crisis is the direct result of the desacralization of nature in the West and the major cause of this desacralization is modern science and the modern man. This modern perspective of western man and its materialistic greed have created global imbalance, by creating new harmful and uncontrolled scientific methods. This has been done at the cost of the Nature. Nasr sees the environmental pollution and the constant extinction of animals and other living species are the witness of this tragic fact, which has encompassed the whole world. Modern man’s subordination to secularist perspective is directly responsible for our environmental catastrophe (Nasr 1996, 03). As Nasr has seen that it is the West which gave the birth to this ideology and it is Western civilization that absolutized the earthly man keeping him at the Center. Consequently, a number of cultures based upon their own art and interests defined modern man through rationalism and scientism. This modern man is continuously engaged in destroying the natural environment ‘in the name of the rights of man’. Nasr describes this modern man ‘who deems itself as an absolute’ causes huge destruction in every corner of the earth without seeing its bad consequences for the humanity. Nasr further adds that 99

Modern man invented modern medicine, which created both wonder and horror (Nasr 1993, 68). Generally, if we analyze the consequences of the modern scientific paradigm, then environmental crisis, global warming, Ozone depletion and extinction of so many animals and plant species are the outcome of this paradigm and are therefore a threat to the whole life.

These lines in the religion and the order of nature characterize the Nasr’s eco- philosophy. It includes the important elements of his eco-philosophy. He emphasizes that a compassionate way is needed with the environment. It has lost harmony with heaven and is in continues strife. For Nasr it all happens because of the secularization of this world and with the development of technology. This phenomenon has involved whole earth to destroy the sacred quality of nature. Although Nasr has a hope that even now there are still people who are dominated by religions can solve the existing crisis between the man and nature by following their religious cosmology.

100

4.3 Nasr’s Religious Solution to Environmental crisis

Nasr’s observation that through the modern sciences humanity has come to perceive the natural world as mere stuff that came into being randomly; the world has been reduced to mathematical quantities and machine-like functionality and is no longer appreciated in terms of its symbolic meaning as a revelatory creation of God. For Nasr the problem is ignorance and the solution is knowledge. In order for the ecological crisis to be reversed humanity must rediscover the sacred quality of nature, that is, it’s symbolic meaning, intrinsic value, and connection with God; also, humanity must recover a self- understanding that is sacralized and replete with religious significance. Such a resacralization of science and humanity would bring about a resacralization of nature in humans’ perspectives (Mevorach 2015, 121).

That the harmony between man and nature has been destroyed is a fact which most people admit. But not everyone realizes that this disequilibrium is due to the destruction of the harmony between man and God. It involves a relationship which concerns all knowledge. And in fact the modern sciences themselves are the fruit of a set of factors which, far from being limited to the domain of nature, concern all Western man’s intellectual and religious heritage…That is the reason why it is necessary to begin our analysis by turning firstly to the natural sciences and the views held concerning their philosophical and theological significance, and then to the limitations inherent within them which are responsible for the crisis that their application, and the acceptance of their world view, have brought about for modern man (Nasr 1968, 21-22).

In view of the same, Nasr had almost study all the traditions and find a traditional solution from every religion after realizing that the physical sciences could not provide ultimate knowledge of the universe. For this matter Nasr and so many theologians had dealt with the traditionalism for the significant role to overcome the global crisis. Nasr being one of the advocates of traditionalism suggests that only religion can play a crucial role in solving of the existing

101 crisis between man and Nature. He says “without destroying the significance of religions itself and to carry out the comparative study of the ‘earth’ of various religions as has been carried out for their ‘Heavens’, if these terms are understood in their traditional metaphysical and cosmological sense” (Nasr 1996, 03). Then he suggests the religious understanding of the order of Nature in each tradition should be taken seriously and developed successfully as a religious matter not just historically or anthropologically (Nasr 1996, 03-04). All the major religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are concerned deeply with the world of Nature and its relation to the man. All these religions have systematically explained the relation of humans to Nature. Thus, the need according to Nasr is to develop a path across all religions that will heal the wounds of the earth and the environment and stop the disaster on the global scale. That is why Nasr and many other leading environmentalists agreed that there is an urgent need for a religious approach to the environmental crisis and his approach to the problem is in the theological and philosophical way.

Nasr proposed an alternative worldview that is traditional and religious, a new form of consciousness that he believes will rediscover the balance which world has lost and that will help humanity to re-establish cosmic and environmental harmony. For re-establish a new vision of cosmos, Nasr proposes alternate ways to humanity for the solution of the problem. First, revival of traditional knowledge, Second, formulate religious environmental ethics and third, spiritual training and ritual for regaining the sense of sacred. The first step towards a solution is regaining the knowledge of the principles underlying the true order of reality which we have lost. He says remaining further unconscious about this problem in this world will misdirect our actions and lead to persistent menace. The real knowledge according to him can only be gained through religious traditions. Regarding it, Nasr emphasizes the necessity to return to more than one tradition, so as to bring out an understanding of the link between religion and the order of Nature on a global scale (Nasr 1996, 25). 102

For him, religion offers a way for people to perceive their relation with environment in a humanly comprehensible framework to maintain the fundamental values of human existence. However, Nasr believes religion plays an important role in maintaining the ecological balance of the natural world. He calls for a serious attention across religious followers to formulate a proper human-earth relationship for a sustainable future of the natural environment. Most religious systems had proven a significant attitude towards Nature for centuries, and religious life and earth’s ecology are linked with each other in such a way that it cannot be separated, but unfortunately modern man sees it as a result of economic, political and social factor, not as a religious and spiritual matter, the result of which is complete separation of ecology from religion. For the recovery of this religious approach to Nature, Nasr advocates to the whole humanity that it needs an eco-theological approach for the preservation and the conservation of the natural environment. He primarily argues that modern man has to change his mind-set for looking Nature in a modern secular perspective in which he completely negates the religious and spiritual views of Nature the result of which is the ecological crisis (Nasr 2007, 30-34). Nasr believes if humans return to the religious view of Nature and its Creator, their way of looking would be changed and can better perceive the sacred quality of Nature as traditionalist like Sufi’s, especially like Rumi. He strongly supports the Sufi cosmology through which he tries to facilitate a change in humans with regards to ecological concern. His importance to study the Sufi cosmological doctrine and its interaction with Nature and how Sufism offers much better relation to Nature, then the modern secular science.

The Sufi philosophy in Nasr related to Nature is mostly influenced by Rumi’s Sufi philosophy of Nature. It is the Rumi’s philosophy of human-earth relationships and human-God relationship that Nasr developed his eco- philosophy and is mostly surrounds by his thought. In this sense Nasr claims that humans destroyed relationship with natural world and God. He says this problem lies within the souls of human beings. The main problem of humans is disconnection with God and not having love with his creature, the result of 103 which is the materialistic view of nature and the sense of domination over it is also the result of a sense of lust and greed incited by humans through their preoccupation of economic progress and the desire to conquer all aspects of nature. Nasr says there is problem in the way modern man perceives nature, he is unaware about its spiritual significance and in the way he process to conquer it he does not realize that he is destroying themselves. In this sense Nasr look environmental problem inside the humans not the other outside factors. In this regard he aims to re-establish the sacred quality of the nature by rediscovering or bringing back the views of religious traditions, like Sufism, that promote a metaphysical awareness of the spiritual significance of nature. He says rediscovery of the sacred view of nature can only be happen if there is a change in the manner in which individuals see and interface with nature. For Nasr it is good to encourage the sacred view of nature but there must be a rediscovery of a specific kind of individual that considers this logic of the earth important, and applies it to their daily life. He explains this kind of development happens within a person and then expresses itself out into the world. Furthermore, regardless of whether this appears as though a little advancement in the manner in which we can change the ecological circumstance of the planet, Nasr claims that “even one person changing his or her way of thinking and acting can have an effect” (Nasr 2010, 198).

In this matter Nasr claims in order to restore the sacred quality of natural environment, there must be re-charm of the human beings, which requires them to reconnect with God. It simply means that it will return humanity to the religious views of the world that emphasis the understanding of the universe in relation to God’s place in it, and nature’s job as communicator of the existence of God. Nasr says that if this kind of religious views of nature will return as communicated by the Sufis and others, modern people may come to comprehend that the natural world is something other than a substance to be used. Nasr says “we need a deep transformation of our understanding of nature and of the human state, of who we are, of what our relationship is with God and the natural environment which is His creation” (Iqbal 2007, 81). For him, it is 104 impossible for humans to protect Nature without rediscovering the association Nature has with God and redeveloping a consciousness of Nature’s sacred quality that is a reflection of the work of the Divine (Nasr 1993, 145). Further Nasr added that for nature and humankind it is essential to develop and rediscover the consciousness of nature’s sacredness within themselves which Nasr says is intrinsic in all humans. Thus, Nasr contends that the solution for the environmental crisis can only come from curing the spiritual condition of modern humans and by rediscovering the sacred nature of the world that has been offered, generously, to people from God. Additionally, he expresses that the generosity nature presents to humankind is the evidence of this reality, and in spite of the harmful relationship people have had with the natural environment, Nature continues to survive and offer its ontological message to people (Nasr 1993, 145).

In contrast to this crisis Nasr promotes the sapiental tradition within the world religions for a holistic treatment of the hierarchy of knowledge that corresponds to different orders of reality. For Nasr modern science limit the knowledge up to the experimental and rationalistic understanding, this gives rise to an analytical and fragmented conception of the world, whereas the traditional conception of knowledge of higher level of reality is understood through intuitive and reason which allows man to know God. In order to this Nasr advocates that people should made clear distinction between scientific and traditional knowledge so to develop a critique of modern science (Nasr 2001, 306). For the solution of this crisis Nasr calls for the traditional ethics which for his understanding is mainly based on traditional Islam. He believes traditional Islam has access to powerful and persuasive spiritual teachings about the natural environment and the relation of humans to it and has a better ways for human action. Hence, Nasr advocates that environmental teachings should be derived from the Islamic teachings from its original sources like Qur’an, Hadith and Shari’ah and their interpretation in a proper way. Nasr expresses that Islam has a rich tradition about nature in its philosophy, Sufism, Islamic Science, Islamic Art, literature, architecture, and landscaping, all these 105 contains fundamental teachings (Nasr 2003). He further argues these teaching needs to be revived and reapplied to the masses for the environmental solutions.

Qur’an: Nasr refers Qur’an the first fundamental source of inspiration for the humankind to address the environment and all other social as well as other aspects of life. It refers cosmos as God’s first primordial revelation and therefore is considered as one of the signs of God and it can be found in the virgin nature. Classical Islamists and several other thinkers like Nasr considers the order of the universe, its architecture and all its creatures whether human or others both from terrestrial to aquatic are signs of God (āyāt). All these creations are perceived as sacred and Divine and the act of his power and his manifestation. Although it is mentioned in Qur’an as we shall show them our signs upon the horizons and within themselves until it becomes manifest unto them that it is Truth (Qur’an 41:53). Qur’an describes nature has an inner levels of meaning and significance. It is not made by God for our purpose only but it reflects the power of God. It is not created only to feed and provide shelter humans, but has beyond its role to nurture our souls. For Nasr, “it is a source of spiritual presence and a source for understanding and contemplating divine wisdom. Human beings are created as channels of grace for the cosmic ambience around them” (Nasr 2003, 96). In this sense Nasr describes through the Qur’anic sources that it is our duty which is assigned by God to us to be an obedient servant of him on earth, having responsibility of the rights for all other creatures. He explains everything in this universe has its own God-given position of which every human being have to respect and pay what is due to each creature.

Hadith: Nasr believes it is also another source of inspiration for humankind to address and cure the natural environment. The whole books of Hadith are full of sayings of prophet (SAW) and numbers of Hadiths are referred about the relation between the man and the environment. These Holy Scriptures has maintained inseparable relation between the environment and

106 our souls. These Holy Scriptures offers a completely integrated view of the universe, where the human soul and the environment, mind and matter are all part of one living, conscious whole. Therefore, it exhorts man to live a balanced, moderate and an eco-friendly life without causing any harm to nature. Nasr says these scriptures works as a strong ethics for their followers. For its conservation it encourages the believers for rewards in hereafter life and prohibits about its excessive use, as a result it promotes a greater care for other creatures of God and for the natural environment and its resources. In this way Nasr is strongly advocating the traditional way of looking nature and has promoted the views of Prophet and other saints. Like prophet have encouraged people about plantation and in Hadith Plantation is regarded as a charitable gift for a person if one do it and in another place it is said that removing any harmful thing in environment is also charity. In another Hadith pollution of water resources, wastefulness excessive use of resources and needless destruction of the natural resources based on greed is also prohibited, not only that but more stress is laid upon the cleanliness of our surroundings and is treated more essential in Islam as half faith (half iman). In another Hadith regarding the care and love of animals and all other creatures of God is said there is a reward in hereafter for serving any living being. In one of the Hadith Prophet (SAW) said, “Whoever kills a sparrow or anything bigger than that without a just cause, Allah will hold him accountable on the Day of Judgment. “The listeners asked, “O Messenger of Allah, what is a just cause?” He replied, “That he will kill it to eat, not simply to chop off its head and then throw it away.” (Sunan al-Nasā’ī 4445 Sahih)

Shari’ah: The Islamic Divine law Shari’ah involves several injections for the public life of human beings like economic, social, political and natural environment. These laws decided every aspect of Muslim, somewhere it permits and somewhere it prohibits the act. It depends upon its principle which is associated with the above two sources like Qur’an and Hadith. Muslims mostly accepts the Shari’ite injunctions which oppose several things that can help in treating natural environment more efficiently, such as wastefulness, 107 excessive collecting of wealth, destruction of natural resources and other things. For Nasr it is extremely important that Islam has injunctions that work as strong ethics for the nature. However, he has not much emphasis upon that but he considers Islamic Divine Law (shari’ah) as a model for reviving tradition. As he mentioned that this Divine Law (shari’ah) has many important prescriptions for the treatment of the Nature which we have lost by the modern methods. Nasr explained his opinion about the function and the role of Divine law.

First of all: there is Divine Law. That is the Ideal Law. It translates into human life and life on earth through the Divine Law in Islam, the Sharia, which is Divine Law. But as human beings being imperfect, it is never perfectly applied. But it is always there and some of it, much of it, like those of marriage, divorce, economic functions, and so forth on the individual level, still to the Islamic world are accorded to it, because there is to be divine law.

And that Sharia, Divine Law, has very important prescriptions concerning our treatment of the world of nature. I have not worked too much on that….. I have always been interested in the theoretical and metaphysical, cosmological aspect of it.

But as an example, consider water: Some of this cannot be privatized; this is public domain, like the water of mountains and so forth. Secondly, there very strict injunction given about treatment of animals, of the cutting of trees, of polluting the water, there are many, many injunctions within Sharia. And of course, most important of all: not living with excessive material things. This is a kind of opposition to we have called consumerism today.

Consumerism has just crashed in the United States…. Many people are trying to adjust again with cosmetics to cure it, by something much deeper is going on. Anyway that is my view (Schwencke 2009, 69).

He stresses regularly on traditional scholars for their role to counter the crisis in the traditional way and to formulate the religious environmental ethics, which

108 is within the environmental ethics. Therefore it becomes easy to appeal to the people of the world who are religious in nature. Nasr’s writing in 1960’s for environmental theology among Muslims have played important role in inspiring and create consciousness about environmental crisis, especially with his book The Encounter of Man and Nature which is not only related to Islamic tradition but all other major religions, encouraging towards sacredness of Nature. As Nasr has seen the crisis on a global level and its danger almost involved all the countries, including Muslims, for whom Nasr realizes are paying less attention towards the environment, they should understand that the Traditional Islam has a very rich tradition and wisdom about the Nature and the environment. Nasr clearly states that what Islamic world should do for this devastating environmental crisis first “making it clearly known in a contemporary language the perennial wisdom of Islam concerning the natural order, its religious significance and intimate relation to every phase of man’s life in this world. Second the awareness of the Sharite teachings concerning the ethical treatment of the natural environment” (Nasr 1993, 71).

In this sense Nasr promotes environmental ethics that is God-centered and is based on spiritual values. The other way Nasr formulates is religious rituals in modern way which he further explains in a mystical sense i.e. ‘Nature is hunger for our prayers’ and these prayers link us with God. According to him,

All traditional religions, rituals descend from Heaven. A ritual is an enactment, or rather re-enactment, here on earth of a divine prototype……these rites, by virtue of their re-enactment on earth, link the earth with the higher levels of reality. A rite always links us with the vertical axis of existence, and by virtue of that, links us also with the principles of Nature (Nasr 2007, 34-35).

For Nasr traditions link us with the nature and its principles. These are made or descended from heaven to develop the connection between the man, nature and higher realities. He sees the present problem is because of separating or

109 neglecting these facts from the humanity and only endorsing rationalistic and secular philosophy to solve the environmental problem. He pragmatically added that the vast majority of the people in the world are living their lives according to religions, which can play a significant role in understanding and solving the environmental crisis (Nasr 2007, 30). Nasr generally insists that type of ethics which is God-centered or theocentric, mainly based on the spiritual virtues of happiness, self-control or virtue ethics and discipline. He sees it in a practical way that it will stop consumerism, establish a proper economic system and maintain harmony with the natural environment. However, on a deeper level Nasr believes it will help humankind to redirect the energies of the soul from the worldly things towards the Divine domain.

Nasr explains with an example how this God-centered and theocentric ethics will help people to understand in better way the significance of Nature and its relation to Divine. He says people sometimes do not accept ethics which does not have religious foundation, instead of that which has religious base. In this regard he explains for the religious people especially from India and Pakistan a Mullah or a Brahmin can ask the believer from religious point of view that cutting down of trees is forbidden or other things which caused pollution many people would accept it, whereas on the other way some government officials say on the rational, philosophical and the scientific way very few people care about it. Therefore, for him religion can play a strong motivating role towards Nature (Nasr 2007, 31). According to him, in one sense religion can inspire maximum people to treat nature in a proper way and in another sense it will bind them to that reality which they have lost by following the modern philosophy. For him, in the present world only that ethics can be accepted in the vast majority of the people, which are religious in nature, because the majority population of the world are practicing religions, that is the reason Nasr believes that religion can play a charismatic role for the general public for convincing them about Nature and the environment.

110

Later Nasr tries to elaborate traditional philosophy and ethics in the Islamic sense, that the modern man is more interested in “al-‘amal or action without al-‘ilm or knowledge, whereas he believes traditional Islamic sources have always taught us that “al-‘ilm or ‘knowledge’ and al-‘amal or ‘action’ must accompany each other. Al-ilm (knowledge) without al-amal (action), as explained by Nasr, is a tree without fruit and al-‘amal without al-‘ilm is chaotic action without principle and ultimately positive efficacy, and it is usually more destructive than no action at all” (Nasr 1996, 05). In order to understand Nature and the environment in a traditional Islamic way, it is necessary to understand first the conception of man, who was and is considered as a custodian of Nature. Unfortunately now man himself has become its destroyer and the predator. The man was considered as God's Vicegerent (al-khalifah) on earth and as a Vicegerent he must be active in the world for sustaining the cosmic harmony and must be aware of his responsibilities (Nasr 1993, 67). It was sent on earth as a ‘khalif’ maintainer or custodian to balance the harmony between heaven and earth. It was his duty to understand the significance of the sacredness of the nature. Nasr argued in order to rebirth the ultimate human who guards the natural environment as the khalif (custodian) we need to understand the role of man. Nasr describes God in relation with the environment and he profoundly explains:

God Himself is the ultimate environment which surrounds and encompasses man...... referring to the Qur’an Nasr explains that God is All-Encompassing (muhit) and man is immersed in the Divine Muhit and is only unaware of it because of his own forgetfulness and negligence (ghaflah), which is the underlying sin of the soul, only to be overcome by remembrance (dhikr)...... The environmental crisis may in fact be said to have been caused by man’s refusal to see God as the real ‘environment’ which surrounds man and nourishes his life. The destruction of the environment is the result of modern man’s attempt to view the natural environment as an ontologically independent order of reality, divorced from the Divine Environment without whose

111

liberating grace it becomes stifled and dies. To remember God as al- Muhīt is to remain aware of the sacred quality of Nature, the reality of natural phenomena as signs (āyāt) of God and the presence of the natural environment as an ambience permeated by the Divine Presence of that Reality which alone is the ultimate ‘environment’ from which we issue and to which we return (Nasr 1993, 66).

He explains in the above text that God is all encompassing, means (muhit) and itself is Divine environment which surrounds, sustains and pervades all creation with the sacredness of the Divine presence. His views are completely based on the mystical dimension of Islam and Sufism that all things in the world belong to God and wherever you turn, there is the face of God (Wersal 1995, 454). He considered God as al-muhit, which, according to him modern man has forgotten and the present environmental crisis is the result of modern man’s refusal of God as a real environment which not only nourishes the man but all the living creatures surrounds the man. Nasr suggests that to remain conscious about the sacred nature of the environment, men should remember the God. This deep alienation of the Western secular man from the Nature, religion and spirituality got within itself not from the outside.

Nasr look this problem arises within the knowledge of humans, so in this sense he calls for a return to a sacred science of nature where all knowledge is understood in relation to God’s role as the All-Knowing. Along these lines he encourages entire humanity to advance internal knowledge for understanding the sacred quality of nature. Internal knowledge, for him in this sense, is a form of consciousness, or, awareness that recognizes God’s place in the world. Also, Nasr promotes this type of divinely-inspired knowledge because he claims that to know nature’s sacredness means to accept that God’s knowledge is the highest form of knowledge, and that all knowledge evolves from the All-Knowing. Despite the fact that, Nasr claims that human knowledge is beneficial for refining a person’s need to fulfill all carnal desires. However, Nasr claims that it is not sufficient for getting a person to a state of awareness where they perceive the sacredness of nature. It is only by looking to

112 the religious views of nature for inspiration that can restore the relationship people have with the nature.

The whole opposition that Nasr forwarded regarding the modern conception of natural world has clearly perceived that to return the sacred quality to nature, humans must reestablish a sacred science of nature and oppose the modern science “totalitarian claims as the science of the natural order” (Nasr 1996, 288). For Nasr humanity should not entirely depend on the modern conception of nature. There should be incorporated traditional metaphysical view of all religions. The secular science is not the absolute science for defining nature and world. In this way the aim of Nasr is to negate the claims of the modern science about the order of the Nature and he wants to open up a discussion on the religious basis, which is followed by the centuries of the traditional societies. He wishes a religious perspective about the order of Nature to be reasserted on the metaphysical, philosophical, cosmological, and scientific levels as legitimate knowledge without necessarily denying modern scientific knowledge (Nasr 1996, 06). He asserts the religious knowledge from each tradition of the environmental ethics should be propagated so that the essential meaning would come on a global scale. For him, “environmental crisis requires not simply rhetoric or cosmetic solutions, but a death and rebirth of modern man and his worldview” (Nasr 1996, 06). He further added that “Man need not be and in fact cannot be "reinvented" as some have claimed, but he must be reborn as a traditional or pontifical man, a bridge between Heaven and Earth, and the world of Nature must once again be conceived as it has always been, a sacred realm reflecting the divine creative energies” (Nasr 1996, 06). His further suggestion for the present crisis is that it can only be stopped when we “dethrone the humanistic conception of man which makes of man a demigod who determines the value and norm of things and who looks upon all of Nature from only the point of view of his self-interest. This dethronement means a death of that type of man who sees Nature as an enemy” (Nasr 1993, 71).

113

Nasr sees this crisis as the inner crisis of humans that continuously create a distance between the man and God and develop a spiritual vacuum. Nasr tries to counter the view of modern approach that ‘Nature can be conquered and exploited for the purposeful means’ by Sufi cosmological and metaphysical principles through which he tries to bring a possible solution by referring particularly the Qur’anic text and Sufi philosophies. Nasr explains these Sufi cosmologies as sacred cosmologies of the religion and his main attempt is to rediscover these cosmologies, which he understood as a science that deals with the natural order of the universe and that cosmology defines the characteristics of the Nature and the environment according to God’s place in the world. Moreover, he further believes that there are no modern cosmologies of the universe that can be followed neither need any new type of reinvention of a sacred view of Nature, rather to redevelop the traditional cosmology, which is sacred and is followed by all religions (Nasr 1996, 287). Nasr further stresses that this type of sacred religious knowledge should be taken seriously for the restructuring of the intellectual landscape of Nature (Nasr 1996, 287). His consistency on the faith, that only a spiritual rebirth of the individual will bring an everlasting solution to modern problem. All the solutions that need to cure these acute problems concerning to man and Nature consists in Sufism, which he says is the “marrow of the bone or the inner dimension of the Islamic revelation” (Nasr 1977, 43). For him, there is no spirituality without religion. There is no way of reaching the spirit without choosing a path which God has chosen for us, and that means religion. Nasr is not using these words for the sack of expediency, but to emphasize that to include a reality which encompasses both spirituality and religion, in the current understanding of these terms, although traditionally the term religion would suffice since in its full sense it includes all that is understood by spirituality today (Nasr 2003, 75).

4.4 How Nasr understands role of God in Nature?

It became a trend in western countries that only modern secular science is the absolute science for defining the world. Nasr explains modern science is a

114 secular approach for defining nature because God’s role in it is no longer considered a valid explanation of nature’s characteristics. For him all this type of secular science develop slowly from the modern period and now this secular knowledge of universe is considered as the authoritative knowledge for understanding earth and the whole universe. This scientific knowledge rejected the religious knowledge of nature because their claim it is based on sentiments and emotions or on subjective factors.

…….The rule became that there is no other knowledge of nature except what is called scientific knowledge. And if someone claims that there is a religious knowledge of nature, then it is usually claimed that it is based on sentiment, on emotions, or, in other words, on subjective factors. If, for example, you see a dove flying and you think of the Holy Spirit, that is simply a subjective correlation between your perception of the dove and your own sentiments. There is no objectivity accorded to the reality of nature as perceived through knowledge. That is why even symbolism has become subjectivized—it is claimed to be “merely” psychological, à la Jung. The symbols which traditional man saw in the world of nature as being objective and as being part of the ontological reality of nature have been all cast aside by this type of mentality which no longer takes the religious knowledge of nature seriously (Nasr 2007, 37-38).

All the development in the modern period is it scientific temper or rationalism has been responsible for the separation of the traditional knowledge from the present. For Nasr, this become also reason for the separation of God from the nature and the important fact is that when the role of God is replaced from the nature people no longer felt responsibility for nature. For Nasr, it is modern science which desacralize nature in the name of supremacy of man and it completely fails in exploring it’s all dimension, same is case with the humanism it fails to develop the better human without evils on earth. Secular way of thinking about nature will not solve the problems of the world it needs a spiritual solution which lies in traditional philosophy. It can only possible by

115 returning to the perennial spiritual traditions. For him, science tries to explain the process of nature its function and its reality, but it forgot the important metaphysical factor i.e. the place of God. Modern man has completely forgotten the place of God in the nature because they become fully dependent on modern explanation of the nature instead of the religious which seems for Nasr valid. For Nasr human-earth relationship was refused because modernists claim it is based on myth and symbolism. In order to refuse theology Science itself became an ideology to evaluate human and its relation to other things and that particular ideology serves as a de facto theology for modern humans (Nasr 1968, 70). For Nasr, this particular scientific ideology alone cannot perceive of what it means to be human. It alone cannot explain all the secrets of nature neither humans can accept it because of its problematic nature such as its refusing religious metaphysical knowledge and crisis which it caused. It is very difficult for humans to find a solution for the crisis of nature unless it is not treated as raw material to be exploited by humans. According to Nasr for finding its treatment modern science is further exploiting it. His critique of modern science is supported by several thinkers like Ibrahim Kalin who writes in favour of Nasr:

Modern science is an anomaly not simply because we have to pay a high price by destroying the natural environment, but because modern science operates within a seriously misguided framework in which everything is reduced to pure quantity and by which modern man is made to think that all of his problems, from transportation to spiritual salvation, can ultimately be solved by further progress in science. The other cost of the scientistic fallacy is to make spiritual realities appear redundant, or at least not relevant to the world-picture presented by modern science [and] it is the absence of such metaphysics that makes science modern or traditional (Kalin 2001, 446).

According to Nasr modern science misleads humanity in the name of exploring and studying nature, instead of exploring its significance and dimensions to the public it was exploited. For its solution Nasr calls for the return to the scared

116 science that reveals its knowledge and significance of all dimensions including the spiritual and symbolic, which lead humanity to the highest order of reality, which is God. Nasr says “Only this knowledge can reveal the significance, symbolic and spiritual, of the ever more complex scientific theories and discoveries themselves which in the absence of this knowledge appear as sheer facts opaque and cut off from truths of a higher order” (Nasr 1968, 31). For Nasr it is essential to apply this kind of divine knowledge to the modern science otherwise it appears as ‘sheer facts opaque and cut off from truths of higher order’. In this sense explaining truth in nature is not possible without acknowledging God’s place in it because of the limitations of human knowledge for attaining such awareness. So in this way Nasr explains that scientific study of nature is insufficient for determining nature’s sacred quality. Therefore Nasr explains in a religious sense the significance of nature and for him everything in nature is his expressions and is interconnected because it stems from God.

Nasr is not only critical to scientific study of nature but is also critical on relying on human faculties, for him “the faculties of the soul occupy the highest realm of intellect, whilst the faculties of the human senses occupy the lowest” (Nasr 1967, 142). For Nasr humans should not dependent on sensual pleasures because they facilitate the exploitation of nature and misuse of it. When a person relies only on their human senses for interacting with the earth they seek to pleasure those senses. Bear in mind that the human sense are essential for contemplating nature’s significance. If we did not have the ability to smell, hear or taste the gifts of nature, it would be difficult to be able to understand the quality and diversity that comes from God’s creation. What Nasr argues is that humans need to control their senses, to contemplate and see nature for more than what it provides for us in our mortal state as consuming beings. The natural environment is, instead, a method for contemplating God’s existence and to grasp an understanding of where nature and all of creation for that matter comes from. Nasr understands that God is evident in all of creation. For this reason, he is critical of those who attempt to use human reason to know 117

God by investigating nature. According to him, one cannot know God through the use of reason. His claim is that:

Many Sufis also deny the possibilities even to the intellect to know God in Himself. But there lies at the heart of man a divine spark. At the center of the heart resides the Divine Throne, to use the traditional Islamic imagery. The Sun of the Self shines at the center of man's being. By passing through the gate of annihilation (al-fana) and reaching the state of subsistence (al-baqa) in God, man is able to swim in the Infinite Ocean of Divinity… He cannot comprehend God in Himself, since God is infinite and to comprehend means literally to encompass; therefore how can one encompass that which is infinite? But one can become immersed in that ocean of Light on the condition of becoming no one, by becoming totally transparent before the God within or the inner Self which in knowing Itself knows all things (Nasr 2001, 713-714).

Nasr argues for instance, a scientist who tries to find God through modern scientific conceptions of nature will not be able to because they are not applying a certain type of metaphysical knowledge about the universe seriously. This is essentially Nasr’s problem with those who search to find God through human investigation. The thought that one can know God is false, and those who claim to have found God are mistaken. In this way Nasr observed that spiritual significance of nature cannot be obtained by the modern science. It needs a metaphysical and self-awareness that can interact better with nature. It cannot be obtained through the views of Western historians of science who developed their discipline on the basis of scientific progress and positivistic understanding of science. Nasr argues in order to understand the significance of Nature West has to develop a methodology for the study of history of Islamic sciences in the context of Islamic civilization not as the positivistic history of science prevalent in the West. After that he claims in order “to understand fully Islamic science and its history and status within the Islamic intellectual citadel, it is necessary to remember the hierarchy of knowledge so central to the

118

Islamic worldview. To be sure there is every legitimacy for the existence of a rational science in the Islamic context, provided it is not taken to be the only legitimate science or even the highest form of knowledge-which is none other than irfan or ma'rifah that can be rendered as "gnosis" or "noesis" based upon the twin sources of intellection and revelation” (Nasr 2001, 714). In this sense what Nasr is calling to whole humanity particularly Muslims to rediscover the traditional Islamic Sciences, but in a same way as it was held by traditional Muslims (Sufis) then the sacred quality of nature can be rediscovered. In this way Nasr’s methodology for the solution is fully dependent on the Sufi teaching of the Qur’an, Hadith and Shari’ah which is already discussed above that demonstrates that nature is sign (aya) of God’s existence. Sufis saw the phenomena of nature as a sign (aya) of God (Nasr 1993, 66). In Islamic cosmology cosmos is perceived as full of meaning and purpose and for Nasr humans should understand that nature communicates the existence of God, nature consists of the sacred realities of the divine. Nasr explains in the last paragraph of religion and the order of nature:

Finally, every being in the world of nature not only issues from the Divine Principle or the One, but also reflects Its Wisdom and, to use theistic language, sings the praises of the Lord. The religious understanding of the order of nature, which we can share only on the condition of conforming ourselves to the world of the Spirit, enables us to read the signatures of God upon the face of things and hear their prayers. It thereby re-creates a link between us and the world of nature that involves not only our bodies and psyches but also the Spirit within us and our final end. It enables us to see the sacred in nature and therefore to treat it not only with respect but also as part of our greater self. It reminds us how precious is each being created by God and how great a sin to destroy wantonly any creature that by virtue of its existence bears the imprint of the Divine and is witness to the One who is our Origin and End……. (Nasr 1996, 289).

119

In view of Nasr the whole universe contains a sacred aspect. The cosmos speaks to man and all of its phenomena contain meaning. They are symbols of a higher degree of reality which the cosmic domain at once veils and reveals (Nasr 1968, 21). Nasr explains the structure of the cosmos communicate a spiritual message for humanity as a revelation of God. Consequently, as a revelation of God, nature has a sacred quality. Although, Nasr claims that only God is Sacred, and that It manifests itself in all kinds of beings in the world. So, according to Nasr, God is the Sacred, and then there are objects in the world that are sacred because of their relation to God (Nasr 2010, 203). In this way Nasr describes the God’s place in creation in his poetry: Thy Beauty is in all creatures reflected here below, In the face of a fair maiden and the flight of a flock of birds, In the azure sky and the roaring sea, In the mane of the mighty lion and the hues of the lovely sea urchin. I hear the Beauty of Thy Voice in the siren song of the whale, As well in the chant of the nightingale in the garden, Hymning Thy Praise in her morning concert. Above all I behold Thy Beauty in the sanctified soul of Thy true lovers, Beholden to Thy Love, basking in Thy Radiance (Nasr 2007, 23) See also (Quadir 2013, 96).

In the poetry of Nasr and as well as in Sufi poetry each animal, bird, flower, sun, moon, mountain, and sea has special meaning by the way it adores God or by the message it carries from God (Quadir 2013, 96). Nasr thought shows the influence of the Sufi poetry and he represents it in the same way as they did like Rumi and others. Nasr showed the sacred presence in nature and is far beyond its use as a materialistic entity. So for Nasr in order to destroy the nature humans are destroying a method for contemplating God’s existence in the world. And, when humans destroy nature they are reducing the amount of sacred realities in the world. In this way Nasr looks natural world as theophany and it communicates with humans and reflected the existence of the God who created it. All the creations of this natural world are hidden proof of God’s

120 existence. These proofs are hidden and unseen for us but they are evident expression of his existence. The whole thought of Nasr revolves around the Sufi conception of Tawhid. Nature is created by God and bears the imprint of the Divine (Nasr 1996, 288). If humans want to remember this aspect where from it comes and where it returns finally. According to Nasr the origin of the nature is God and finally it will return to God as all Muslims and Sufi believes. “It means to rediscover a science of nature that deals with the existence of natural objects in their relation to Being, with their subtle as well as gross aspects, with their interrelatedness to the rest of the cosmos and to us, with their symbolic significance and with their nexus to higher levels of existence leading to the Divine Origin of all things” (Nasr 1996, 287). In this sense Nasr claims that everything in nature is interrelated and is expressions of divine reality, but, because God created all things, everything aims to re-establish this lost connection, a connection which he sees as part of the crisis in humanity.

According to Nasr if humanity has re-establish this lost connection with the God then humans have to re-union with the Divine. This union with God is the important aspect in Nasr’s philosophy and for him this is the only method to know God. For him it is difficult in one sense to know God but Sufi should strive to become one with God. Getting to be unified with God is, for Nasr, the objective of all creation. The return to God is the thing that all of nature is on the way to doing. While a few people may miss the end of this adventure, nature does not. It is a guide for people to contemplate that all of creation comes back to the One who is the Source and End of all life. In Nasr's determination of the ecological crisis he clarifies that one of the issues that encourages the steady destroying of our normal environment is the reason that a few people don't comprehend the importance of nature, and that it has its very own existential purpose. In this way, by coming back to certain Sufi perspectives of human earth relationship natural world has a purpose beyond the human utilization (Wensley 2015, 99).

121

Thus, Nasr claims that just a contemplative of nature can accomplish the kind of knowledge to understand God's place on the planet, which will empower nature to help in their spiritual life as a model of what it is to be Muslim. A contemplative of nature, for example, Rumi, has gained the knowledge to understand nature’s significance as a sacred reality of the One who made it and to which it will return. These contemplatives are on a journey to reunite with God, and are striving to become the ultimate humans who protect nature and maintain the harmony between God, humans, and nature. In this sense Nasr is strongly critical of the modern man who completely depends on human knowledge for defining nature. Modern man continue support this ideology so that to gain their materialist desires and treat nature as a way he wants, particularly from the economic point of view. Although Nasr battles that there can be a rebirth of human beings as the ultimate beings. These ultimate humans not only see the divine quality in nature, but, they understand the place of human knowledge in relation to God’s place in it. They act as the sustainers and protectors of the balance between nature, themselves, and God. With this in mind, Nasr argues that a rebirth of the ultimate human will aid in the reconnection between humans, the earth, and God. Thus, this implies the disharmony between the three can be repaired (Wensley 2015, 108).

4.5 Deconstruction of the Traditional Conception of God

Nasr opposes modernists for deconstructing the traditional model of God. He express God is above and beyond the world, that is, primarily transcendent. He favours a spirituality that focuses on experiencing God as a transcendent being beyond the world, and then through that otherworldly experience gaining an appreciation for the symbolic meaning of nature insofar as all creation points beyond itself to the Creator. He uses the language of majesty for God as sacred and absolute. He explains concept of God as king is common in Quran.

Nasr has some disagreements with the modern theologians like Sallie MacFague who is a Christian theologian. She express theology in a metaphorical way and applied to the problem of environment. Nasr claims:

122

For her the language of revelation is not itself sacred but is only metaphorical to be changed by theologians according to changing circumstances. The description of God in the Bible is finally only a “model” that she sets out to criticize and finally replace by another “model.” MacFague begins her criticism by attacking the “monarchical model” because it makes God distant from the world and concerns only human beings on the basis of domination, as if the monotheisms did not consider God to be the king of the whole Universe and as if the majesty of God expressed in His role as king excluded His beauty and mercy. She also criticizes this "model" because it is hierarchical, a characteristic to which she is strongly opposed. Only in a world where the majesty of God is forgotten and the hierarchy which is innate to the nature of existence denied could the enfeebled vestiges of the symbol of kingship and its concomitant hierarchy be conceived as the cause of the environmental crisis, and the symbol of God as king, which is far from being limited to Christianity, reduced to a dangerous metaphor (Nasr 1996, 195).

Nasr claims that it is because of the modern ideology that the hierarchy and majesty of God is forgotten and all relied upon egalitarianism and materialism. Furthermore, Nasr agrees with MacFague’s model ‘God as a body of the world’. In metaphorical way she uses it as a mother, lover, and friend of the world. Her aim was to present the holistic attitude for nature and avoid forgetting God from the world. Nasr uses Islamic terminology for God as al- Rabb (the Lord) and al-Malik (the King). For him, these names are not only sacred in their meaning but also in their form. These symbolic names of God cannot be changed and if it be changed for Nasr it is the most problematic from the traditional theological point of view. He explained it in the Islamic point of view but MacFague describes it in the Christian feministic way with the environment. She mentions the necessity of stressing Creation rather than simply personal redemption while reminding us that the evil within us manifested in selfishness, greed, etc., is real and a sin in the Christian meaning of the term. In this way Nasr in one way support the MacFague’s thought that

123 the destruction of the environment is in fact the result of sin in the theological sense. Consequently, Nasr says human beings must first of all admit their role in the despoiling of the planet, and, second, realize their responsibility for preserving the community of life. There must be a general repentance, and the “planetary agenda” must be the top concern of all religions (Nasr 1996, 198). Nasr in another way criticised MacFague for blindly accepting modern science and not providing the theological and metaphysical critique to it. Nor did she give much importance to symbolic science of nature which for Nasr is foundational for the traditional cosmological sciences (Nasr 1996, 197).

Further, Nasr’s perspective about the traditional conception of God is explicitly stated in the Quran. Names of God in the Quran are not negotiable; they are revealed sacred symbols rather than mere human conceived metaphors. For Nasr this includes the Quranic designation of God as King. For Modernists and feminist Christians, king-language for God and other patriarchal language in the Bible is not seen as pure revelation, but as male- biased ways of naming God. For McFague and other feminist authors who read the Bible with a critical eye for patriarchal tendencies, “King” is not a name that comes down on high from God for God, but rather a name given to God by males that upholds the institution of kingship and patriarchy in general. This particular difference between McFague and Nasr seems to be irreconcilable (Mevorach 2015, 224).

Furthermore, Nasr relies upon the Quran as a source of revelation in nearly all of his theological arguments, and views the Quran as an ally in terms of advancing an appropriate sense of ecological responsibility for human beings in our contemporary world. It is simply not part of his field of action to make such a move as disputing or discrediting any part of the Quran; and his protest that several major world religions include this name for God should not be taken lightly if we value the idea of interreligious unit (Mevorach 2015, 225).

124

4.6 Nasr’s Perspective about Christianity’s role on Environmental crisis

After emergence of Modernity in the West particularly in those countries where Christian followers were more have developed a new trend to desacralize the knowledge and spirituality of the natural world. Nasr is first blaming Christians instead of first responding to modernity they adopt it and leave their rich tradition. They neglect its consequences and it spread slowly throughout all religions. As for Nasr today all religions are at same line. Christianity has fully accepted Modernistic wave. Nasr admitted behind it was following a particular Philosophy, a western style of progress and growth, based on economic proposes, which has not only dominated Nature but also created environmental crisis. However, the cause of the crisis was not only the bad engineering and faulty economic planning, but, also spiritual and religious in Nature, which lost the religious and spiritual values in the West (Nasr 2001, 29). Nasr’s main observation regarding the crisis is that, West should once again adopt the traditional Christian cosmology of Nature, in order to recover and preserve its spiritual and sacred aspect, revealed by God. The purpose to adopt this traditional cosmology is that it must acknowledge the reality beyond the physical world and traditional metaphysical knowledge. However, the main focus of Nasr was not in a particular tradition, but, most of the major world religions and he identified numerous valuable ideas among these religions that encouraged the sacredness of Nature among their followers. It is the reason that Nasr’s work seems to be the first in the Islamic perspective, addressing that a dialogue is needed between all major religions of the world such as Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism for cosmological concern. Here, Nasr addresses the necessity of dialogue is to regain consciousness of religious spiritualties and the concept of Nature, which will once again revive the spiritual vision of Nature lost in the modern West.

First, Nasr traces the roots of the ecological crisis during the period of enlightenment. Where from the modern man is in continuous progress in using the modern science and technology without any control on it and exploiting

125

Nature in an unwanted manner. His main objection is with uncontrolled modern science. In response to the problem of the reductionist science he claims for the need of the sacred science vis a vis metaphysical science other than the modern science. In order to resacralize the natural order he draws an analogy of a modern man (Promethean man) and a traditional man (Pontifical man) whom Nasr looks serves as a bridge between heaven and earth, he is subject to God and accepts responsibility to rule nature according to God’s will. As opposed to an anthropocentric view, where humanity rules nature absolutely, Nasr refers to this pontifical relationship of humanity standing between heaven and Earth, and ruling Earth in subjection to God, as anthropocosmic. Ultimately, he argues, this is a theocentric rather than anthropocentric world view. On the other hand, modern or promethean man, in open rebellion to a traditional conception of the universe, displaces God as absolute ruler of earth and declares total license to dominate and exploit nature in service of his own interests and desires. In this matter Nasr defended some Christian thinkers claim about biblical view of human beings relation with nature is anthropocentric rather than anthrocosmic. For him it is theocentric and it is not anthropocentric because although it places human beings at the center of heaven and earth, and presents God as giving human beings authority over other creatures, it does not make human beings the locus of meaning and value. It is anthropocosmic because it places human beings in a sacred context where values that are above and beyond human beings. It control human activities and inspire respectful and careful utilization of the power that people have over whatever is left of nature (Mevorach 2015, 129).

The traditional man’s mysticism and contemplation is the ideal form and Nasr calls for Christianity to restore its own contemplative and mystic tradition with its own prominent figures and through dialogue with the eastern religions and traditional Islam. However, he does not call for a reconstruction of Christian doctrine, but for a recovery of the Christian tradition’s spiritual vision of Nature which now seems completely lost. Nasr believes the spiritual vision and the ethics of these traditional religions can stop the modern reductionist 126 science for further destruction and desacralization. Further he added that Christianity should not be blamed for the crisis but should be looked to instead for a solution to it. Christianity may have accidentally and indirectly aided in the desacralization of the cosmos in the West, but it in no way supports modern science’s radical devaluation of nature or gives license to humanity to dominate and control nature for its own selfish, narrow minded and short-sighted purposes. For Nasr, the ecological crisis, while unrelated to the history of religion in the Western world, is fundamentally profane and irreligious. It is a crisis brought about by the desacralization of nature which can only be remedied through nature’s resacralization.

Nasr observed during few decades ago Western science and the Christian theologians become interested once again in a natural environment, but it has not helped in an appreciable way. Indeed, it has created confusion and a breach between the religious organizations in the West, which still survives either it, be Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox and other movements. However, Nasr argues that these movements are pseudo-religious movements and are pro-environmental in an ineffectual manner. Presently, he shows a paradoxical situation between these pro-environmentalists and the conservative Christian groups who are least interested in the environment issue. However, Nasr agrees that “this phenomenon was not originally caused by the rise of the New Age religions, but is certainly related to it and strengthened by it” (Nasr 2007, 39). Nasr says the disastrous consequences of the crisis have incited western people to think through religious ways, its understanding and perception, its remedies and solutions for the natural order of nature. Nasr explains, “Diverse paths have been chosen to face this challenge, some seeking to go back to the traditional roots of Christianity, others turn East to Indian and far Eastern religions, and yet others to search for the wisdom of the Native Shamanic religions, especially those of the Americas” (Nasr 1996, 192). Furthermore, he says that many have made an attempt to transform the Christian doctrines and symbols in order to create a new religious attitude which is more conducive to the environment. In addition, he mentioned that 127 like Christianity Judaism has similarly responded in the same way but was unwilling to sacrifice much of its essential and sacred doctrines (Nasr 1996, 192). As for Nasr is concerned, it is first Western religions who allowed and accepted scientific investigation for exploring nature and its order, and is now responsible for the technological oppression against Nature. In against to this Nasr says that non-western religions fight to preserve their identity from this oppression, it became the cause that these places to someway remained less affected by the impact of environmental crisis. These non-western religions have still survived their ideology regarding the order of Nature and also challenged that type of ideology, whose principles Nasr says, lies on materialism (Nasr 1996, 192).

4.7 Role of Modern Science in Desacralization of Nature

The modern science’s growth and development Nasr believes is moving away from the traditional ways of knowing and is a sign of intellectual and spiritual regress. He tried to restore the legitimacy of traditional Islamic cosmology, science and other traditional religious knowledge. On that ground, he criticizes the scientific reductionism and all other thought that declined traditional theology. The important thing which he keeps responsible is Modern Western Man’s technological methods and its associated ideologies like consumerism and other practices for the destruction of the natural environment. New mindset based on technology of western man really has not maintained any respect for nature nor establish any kind of equilibrium, what he maintained is his power for domination over Nature (Nasr 1993, 65).

For Nasr, the crisis that now is threatening humans is not natural phenomena it is outcome of modern man’s own action. The major concern for him is now modern man still refuses to see where the real cause of the problem lie. Religions and religious followers are no longer responsible for the crisis; it is gradual desacralization of the cosmos by the modern western science.

Modern man, faced with the unprecedented crisis of his own making which now threatens the life of the whole planet, still refuses to see

128

where the real causes of the problem lie. He turns his gaze to the Book of Genesis and the rest of the Bible as the source of the crisis rather than looking upon the gradual desacralization of the cosmos which took place in the West and especially the rationalism and humanism of the Renaissance which made possible the Scientific Revolution and the creation of a science whose function, according to Francis Bacon, one of its leading proponents, was to gain power over nature, dominate her and force her to reveal her secrets not for the glory of God but for the sake of gaining worldly power and wealth (Nasr 1968, 06).

The catastrophe that presently man is facing according to Nasr is the deadly consequences of above particular thought which was bought by the Western Renaissance, especially holding the view that ‘Nature is for the sake of gaining worldly power and wealth’. Simply, it was used for the materialistic purposes by humans whatever extend they manage to benefit himself for power and wealth. This kind of scientific attitude regarding the absolutization of the earthly man makes him absolute over God’s rights and the rights of his creation (Nasr 1968, 06). Nasr claims before Renaissance, it was not seen in European civilization. Man was considering God as an absolute, but due to sudden change in his relation to the natural order, he pays much heed to the scientific rationalism and its benefits, refuses to understand the way where the real cause of the problem lays. The consequences of which are separation of modern man from the spiritual sources, for Nasr, which could have to save him from the present crisis. He expresses his opposite to the scientific way of investigating things.

Nothing is more dangerous in the current ecological debate than that scientistic view of man and Nature which cuts man from its spirituals roots and takes a desacralized Nature for granted while expanding its physical boundaries by billions of light years. This view destroys the reality of the spiritual world while speaking of awe before the grandeur of the cosmos. It destroys man’s centrality in the cosmic order and his access to the spiritual world while speaking of the incredible science- fiction of the evolution of man from the original soup of molecules 129

which supposedly contained the whole of cosmic reality at the beginning following the big bang. (Nasr 1968, 07).

Nasr stated in the above lines his disagreement regarding the approach of science towards the order of Nature. He mentioned the way in which science is defining the evolution of humans and its other methodology for explaining the phenomena of the universe have completely cut the spiritual roots of humans and for that matter man has lost the spiritual significance of Nature. He used and enjoyed it to a full extent. Modern man treats it “like a married woman from whom a man benefits, but also towards whom he is responsible, for modern man Nature has become like a prostitute to be benefited from without any sense of obligation and responsibility towards her” (Nasr 1968, 18). Further, he says such an enjoyment of Nature becomes impossible for man and that is why he is now worried about its conditions.

Presently, if we look to the entire world we find that few people are caring about the Nature and opposing the misdeeds and threats of science and technology. The issues like pollution, danger of war, overpopulation and other threats are continuously discussed in every platform. The issue has been realized presently by the majority of the population and now they are in process to remove it, but for Nasr, through same methods i.e. further conquest and domination of Nature. The worrying situation for Nasr is that Man’s lust has not satisfied on the earth’s surface and he is completely restless in search to fly into the space and conquer the heavens, same as he conquered earth (Nasr 1968, 19). It is the fact few people are accepting the problem is not because of under-development, but from over-development and they are accepting the fact that peace will only prevail when a modern society’s attitude change towards Nature and environment (Nasr 1968, 13).

Nasr analysis that natural environment is continuously disrespected and exploited; the first reason for which is the gap in the relationship between the Nature and man increases with the passage of the modern age and other for him is the disconnection with God. He observes it as an inner problem within the

130 human soul, which has completely religious, spiritual and philosophical roots. Modern man is unaware of the spiritual significance of the natural environment, his thought only lies on the materialist ways that conquer the Nature for economic progress and by conquering modern man have not realized that he is destroying his own existence on earth. In this sense it seems essential for Nasr to revive and reinvestigate the traditional metaphysical knowledge and philosophy of religions, which existed in medieval European people. It is still hope for Nasr that modern man will accept the solutions and begin to reform himself and will give new spiritual rebirth to himself through whom he can attain peace and harmony with the natural environment.

4.8 Concept of Nature in Buddhism and Hinduism: A Nasr’s Perspective

Nasr has explicitly discusses the teachings of Buddhism and its interrelatedness of things, while mentioning the teachings of the Dalai Lama that “taking care of the planet is nothing special, nothing sacred or holy, it is just like taking care of our own house. We have no other planet, no other house, except this one” (Nasr 1996, 212). Nasr expressed that Buddhism is not behind in anyway about the views of cosmology and ecology, especially the school of Mahayana (Tathagatagarbha and Alayavijnana). These Buddhist doctrines have always relied on interdependence of things and gave much importance to detect and remove the elements of greed and false assertion of the ego, which Nasr observes is the basis for the spiritual crisis and is also a root cause for the environmental crisis (Nasr 1996, 213).

Nasr while suggesting to the people of the East, it is difficult for you to find a wise philosopher, who will solve the problems, especially the problem of modern man, ‘who had his home first in the West and gradually spread over other continents, went about destroying the planet in the name of progress and economic development’ (Nasr 1991, 113). The process has not only consumed man inwardly and outwardly, but spiritually as well. To overcome this Western agenda which engulfed the eastern lands, Nasr here suggests, “We have to go

131 back to our own traditional sources- the Hindus to Hinduism, Muslims to Islam and so forth” (Nasr 1991, 121).

In response to the West he mentioned the example of the Eastern countries like India, China and Japan. These countries however are not successful in controlling the Western style of the development agenda. The situation in India, which becomes rapidly industrialized, has grown from bad to worse and the situation in their neighboring countries is not even better. These countries have tried to avoid the forces which West bought in the form of development or economic progress. In his words, he says, “Non-Western societies are forced into a global “economic order” within which they have little choice but to follow models of so called development that are formulated in the West and in which non-western religions and philosophies hardly play a role” (Nasr 1996, 208). The primarily responsible factor which Nasr is considering is the major transformations in West in the form of science and technology that create global consumerism and the adoptions of the secularist view of Nature, which replace religious conception of Nature. Secondarily, Nasr highlights other factors responsible for degradation of Nature, such as “differences of degrees of strength of faith and religious practice, attachment of the religious view of the order of Nature and the availability of authentic metaphysical and cosmological doctrines in the two worlds” (Nasr 1996, 209).

Further discussing the ecological solutions in East, Nasr explains in a Gandhian method ‘Ahimsa’ (nonviolence or non-interference). Gandhi used it in a political sense, but Nasr suggests it can be used to define man’s attitude towards the environment as well. He further adds that the Idea of ‘Ahimsa’ is the principle of the Jain tradition, which teaches not interfering in the process of Nature, not only that Nasr also emphasizes Gandhian way of opposing the modern industries (Nasr 1996, 211). Nasr further explaining the respect for other traditions that deliberates on the ecology and the natural world.

…..It is necessary to create respect on behalf of the followers of a particular religion for what is held to be sacred in another religion not

132

only in the domain, say, of sacred art and architecture but also in the world of nature. A Muslim in Benares does not consider the Ganges to be sacred for himself but must accept its sacredness for the Hindus and respect it, as was done for Hindu holy places by traditional Muslims of Benares for centuries and vice versa as far as Muslim holy places were concerned; this mutual respect has continued for the most part and still survives to some extent despite recent communal tragedies (Nasr 1996, 288).

4.9 Conclusion

In conclusion we assessed that Nasr’s thought supported the religious conception of nature instead of modern science. He is much familiar about the conception of nature of all the major religions and endorsed their standpoint especially Sufi Islam. His support to the traditional thought of all religions and their cosmologies, traditional sciences, Art and Philosophy made his belief enough strong to argue that these traditional philosophies can overcome the crisis of modern man both environmental and spiritual. The whole crisis whether for Nasr it is Environmental, Spiritual, Political or Social all come from one particular source i.e. western science and philosophy after the period of Renaissance. For Nasr it is first the west who adopts western science and technology, they grow it, practice it, and spread it throughout the world without seeing its adverse effects. They completely neglect traditional sciences and made themselves dependent on modern one. The chapter involved most of his claims made on different grounds. Initially he made an attempt to trace the roots of the crisis and what were the responsible factors? Where from it starts and who is responsible for the cause. After assessment of these factors Nasr come to the conclusion that western science and philosophy is wholly responsible for the present crisis. His thought revolves mainly in opposition to Christianity for accepting modernity and refusing its own traditional science and values, which were anthropocosmic and were harmonious with human- nature relationship. The whole chapter comprises his traditional thought based on Sufism and the alternate way for the environmental problem. The basic

133 themes under which Nasr eco-theology revolves are: First for him nature is a sign (aya) of God's existence. Second all of creation has its own existential purpose which leads to a union with God. Third the need of the rebirth of man which serves as khalif (sustainer, custodian) of the earth, and maintains the harmony between humans, God, and nature. Fourth, critique of relying on human knowledge and human senses so as to define nature’s sacred quality. These themes are strong critique to modernity and for him humanity needs to return back to traditions so that to transform the world view about the natural environment. Hence his argumentation contains five distinct parts: (1) an assessment of the reality and urgency of the environmental crisis, (2) a critique of modernity, (3) a suggested route towards a solution: a transformation of our world view, (4) the alternative ‘traditional’ worldview and (5) the means to achieve such a transformation or paradigm change.

134

Reference Bourdeau, PH. "The Man-Nature relationship and environmental ethics." Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 72, 2004: 10.

Iqbal, Muzffar. "The Islamic Perspective on the Environmental Crisis: Seyyed Hossein Nasr in conversation with Muzaffar Iqbal." Islam and Science 5, no. 1 (2007).

Kalin, Ibrahim. The sacred versus the secular: Nasr on science. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn, Randall E. Auxier and JR. , Lucian W. Stone. Chicago: open Court publishing company, The Library of Living Philosophers, 2001.

Mevorach, Ian. In Search of Christian-Muslim common path from Desacralization to Resacralization of Nature: Sallie Mcfague and Seyyed Hossein Nasr on the Ecological Crisis. Ann Arbor: ProQuest, 2015.

Nasr, Seyed Hossein. "Islam, the Contemporary Islamic World, and the Environmental Crisis." Edited by Frederick M. Denny, Azizan Richard C. Foltz. Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed Trust (Harvard University Press), 2003: 85-105.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. The Essential Seyyed Hossein Nasr Edited by William C. Chittick Foreword by Huston Smith. Canada: World Wisdom, 2007.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrine. Britain: Thames and Hudson, 1978.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. "Essay on Law and Society, the Sciences, and Philosophy and Sufism." Islamic Studies (Beruit: Syteco Press), 1967: 142.

—. In Search of the Sacred; A Conversation with Seyyed Hossein Nasr on His Life and Thought. Edited by Ramin Jahanbegloo. 135

California: Praeger, ABC-CLIO, LLC Santa Barbara, California, 2010.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Intellectual Autobiography of Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Randall E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone lewis Edwin Hahn. Chicago: Open court publishing company, Library of living philosophers, 2001.

—. Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1968.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. "Man in the Universe Permanence Amidst Apparent Change." Studies in comparative Religion (world wisdom) 2, no. 4 (1968).

—. Religion and The Order of Nature. New York: Oxford University press, 1996.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Reply to Ernest Wolf-Gazo. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Lucian W. Stone lewis Edwin Hahn. Randall E. Auxier. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company: The Library of Living Philosophers, 2001.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Reply to Willam C. Chittick. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Randall E. Auxier, and JR. , Lucian W. Stone. Lewis Edwin Hahn. Chicago: Open Court Publishing company: The Library of living philosophers, 2001.

—. Sufi Essays. U.S: George Allen & Unwin, 1977.

—. The Need For the Sacred Science. UK: Curzon Press, 1993.

—. The Philosophy of Syyed Hossein Nasr. Chicago: Open Court, 2001.

—. The Pilgrimage of Life and the Wisdom of Rumi. Foundation for Traditional Studies, 2007.

136

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. "The Spiritual and Religious Dimentions Of The Environmental Crisis." In Seeing God Everywhere: Essays on Nature and the Sacred, edited by Barry McDonald. Bloomington, Canada: World Wisdom, Inc., 2003.

Nasr, Seyyeid Hossein. "Religion and Environmental Crisis: An Oriental Overview." Indian International Centre Quartely (Spring) 18, no. 1 (1991): 113-128.

Pickthall, Muhammad Marmaduke. Qur'an With English translation. Lahore Pakistan: Qudrat Ullah Co., n.d.

Quadir, Tariq M. Traditional Islamic environmentalism, The vision of Seyyed Hossein Nasr. UK: University press of America, 2013.

Schwencke, A.M. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Traditionalism, Islamic Esotericism & Environmental Ethics. Leiden, Netherland: Unpublished BA dissertation Leiden University Netherland, 2009.

Wensley, Cory. The Influences of Jalal Al- Din Rumi in Seyyed Hossein Nasr's Sufi Diagnosis of the Environmental Crisis. Scotia: Unpublished MA Dissertation, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia , 2015.

Wersal, Lisa. "Islam and environmental ethics: tradition responds to contemporary challenges." Zygon® 303 (1995): 451-459.

137

CHAPTER-V

CRITICAL EVALUATION

The present thesis is an attempt to provide Nasr’s perspective on Modernity and Tradition (Islamic). What has been brought out in Second, Third and Fourth chapters respectively, needs to be critically evaluated, viz; Nasr’s arguments with regard to Modernity and Postmodernity. According to Nasr, Modernity and Postmodernity are not separate movements. He argues that Modernity, Postmodernity, Westernization and Secularization are one and the same process. Presently, one who is known as ‘modern’ means to be westernized and secularized. Postmodernity for him, is simply a continuation of Modernity. He considers both of them to be interrelated and having the same origin and reacts against them as one movement.

The modern period has witnessed an unprecedented increase in man's knowledge, a scientific revolution; resulting in control of his environment. Modernization carries economic, political, and social connotations of the result of events in the modern era. Man’s complete reliance on reason, leading to scientific advances, correspondingly led to revolutionary changes in various areas of human operation. David Apter proposed that when a man is able to control Nature, man’s capability to make moral, social, and personal choices becomes all the more greater (Apter 1976, 10). The sociopolitical and economic norms of the West, became the model for developing nations to imitate. Anyone or any country accepting Western norms is labelled as modern and the fact is that today everything is evaluated on the basis of these Western and modern criteria. Presently, these norms are being used as a measuring scale by the Western societies to evaluate those who do not accept its norms. These modern norms cannot be accepted unless societies have to change their traditional values and ideas. To become modern means to change the values of tradition and accept the secular views based on modernity, materialism and personal choice. Modernsecular societies uphold the views that the more

138

secular is more modern and can have greater control over Nature. The traditional societies are more spiritual and less modern and can have little control over Nature. Hence, secularism allows a society to organize itself for the purpose of controlling Nature, which is the core of modernization. These two movements secularism and modernism, involve the “transformation of all systems by which man organizes his societythe political, social, economic, intellectual, religious, and psychological systems” (Halpern 1964). In this way, the new system has been adopted by the modern man, during these decades which solely relies on materialism and has replaced the old one based on spirituality. Therefore, the new system becomes a challenge for the old one. In this regard, several traditionalists reacted to this view but Nasr emphasized on this problem from an Islamic perspective. He argues that modernity has moved humanity away from the Divine Truth and Revelation, and more toward secular knowledge, which made human beings all the more dependent.

Nasr asserts that both ‘modernity and postmodernity’ from their beginning have posed similar challenges to all the traditions. They entirely depend upon rationality and it is modern rationality that works against all the religious principles. Modernity only talks about the material world and the sensory knowledge gained by sense organs, it questions the knowledge which is not, arrived at by recourse to these faculties. The modern era people have considered it as criteria for the evaluation of all knowledge and through this knowledge, to gain the power to control the entire world. Modern man aims to become more relied upon reason and it is because of this reason the scientific development was made, all things were defined and explained through reason and scientific methods that slowly brought modernization which allowed a man to rely more on modernity than religion. It became an important factor for humanity to move far away from Divine sources. For Nasr, as modernization increases, man becomes more selfreliant and individualistic. It developed ideologies of its own nature like existentialism, relativism. Modernism questions all authorities and nurses an uncontrollable ring of skepticism. According to Nasr, Muslims perceive that modernism is a Western

139

phenomenon similar to Western education, economics and politics which had challenged the traditional valuesystem. It is because of the same that Nasr advanced strong objections to modern epistemology.

5.1 Nasr’s Objection on Modern Epistemology

Modern epistemology is perceived to be most problematic by Nasr. The argument that he projected is that the modernistic approach of studying things and its authoritarian claim on modern metaphysics and epistemology. The modernistic way of knowing things looks more serious challenge to the traditional way of knowing things. His claim is that modern man is widely accepting those things which are rational and scientific, and if it is traditional it is being questioned and rejected. For Nasr, whatever modern, be it epistemology or metaphysics, has completely replaced Tradition, such as metaphysics which includes spiritual, supernatural beliefs and ideas. It only focuses on the material which includes the physical world and does not dealt with the metaphysical realities.

Modernity can be understood from Nasr’s perspective as the worldview that encompasses the sociopolitical, economic, and other developmental ideas. This collective worldview which modernity consists of in any form is not acceptable to Nasr. For him, the major challenge is to reconstruct the knowledge that continues to be transferred to Muslim societies, supporting Western dominance and threatening the vitality of Muslim societies. He considers the challenge of modernity as a worldview, is more than just economic and political at the macro level and more than just issues of social and personal identity at the microlevel. For him, it means to recognize the orientation brought out by the modern epistemology, an orientation that creates tensions for an Islamic worldview.

Nasr and the adherents of Traditionalist School(s) consider that modernity is a deviation from the natural world. Nasr believes it is a kind of renewed age of ignorance because for him, it is only in the modern worldview that forgetfulness becomes dominant. Forgetfulness of sacred and Divine is

140

now seen common in modern man. He claims that humanity serves as a strong link between the Divine and sacred. In this regard, Nasr’s philosophy reminds and recalls us to the fact that with modernity humanity lost the link with the Divine. Modernity destroys the sacred and the metaphysical foundations of knowledge, because it has the most humancentric kind of knowledge, making human reason and empirical data the sole criteria for the validity of all knowledge (Nasr 1975, 14). It rejected the other possibilities of knowing and completely denies the existence of different orders of reality. In this sense, Nasr opposed to modern science and he turns to the sapiential tradition within the World Religions for a comprehensive and holistic treatment of the hierarchy of knowledge that corresponds to different orders of reality. For Nasr, modern science limits valid knowledge to a rationalistic understanding of the phenomenal world. The result is that, it offers an analytic and fragmented conception of the world. The holistic conception of knowledge like intuitive and intellective which allows a man to understand God has been neglected (Nasr 2001, 311).

Modern scientific knowledge for Nasr cannot be absorbed and intermingled into the Islamic framework, as if it were the ilm̒ (knowledge) that the Qurʾān repeatedly urges believers to seek. For him, modern science needs an Islamic critique both on an intellectual level and ethicosocial level, so that Muslims can differentiate science from scientism and recognize the limits of science. In this regard, Nasr claims:

What is important is to realize what modern science is and what it is not but claims to beor at least the majority of its practitioners claim it to be. It is essential to distinguish what science can discover and has discovered about the physical world from the philosophical positivism (and ideologies associated with it) now dominating the modern cultural pictured in the form of scientism (Nasr 2001, 306).

It has been understood from the above statement that Nasr stresses that there should be made a clear distinction between what it is and what it is not! The knowledge of the sacred should be separated from the knowledge of science

141

because what the Qurʾān concerns is absolutely within a sacred framework. All these traditional sciences were linked with the metaphysical framework which was harmonious with the order of Nature. In this regard, Nasr reminds Muslims that, there is a need for reconstruction of metaphysical knowledge of God and cosmos. However, for Nasr, it needs restoration of the original position of intellect over the reason, in that case, modern man can once again link with God, the relative with the Absolute. Since the intellect is able to know the Absolute; it must form the premise for a reconstructed paradigm of knowledge. For Nasr, after acknowledgement of the humancentric nature of modern knowledge, there should be a reconstruction of the traditional knowledge that is to return to the conception of Tawhid so that to reveal the underlying “unity and interrelatedness of all that exists” (Kalin 2001, 451). Tawhid, in the first instance, a theological notion referring to the strict unity and Oneness of God, is here elaborated into a comprehensive metaphysical perspective of the unity of all phenomena. Thus, it may be tempting to view the return to Tawhid as a nostalgic return to the undifferentiated unity of premodern times; Nasr’s conception of returning to Tawhid is one of rediscovering the primordial bond between God and man that has been severed (Gazo 2001, 279). The reconstruction of knowledge within the framework of Tawhid amounts, therefore, to a reenchantment of the world, a re sacralization, a reversal of the process of rationalization; “certainly my goal is to move in the opposite direction than what Max Weber called the Entzauberungprozess” (Nasr 2001, 305). Although Nasr does not point out specifics in the process of enchantment, the revival of Tradition plays a central role in it, because for him a detraditionalized world cannot manifest the sacred (Gazo 2001, 279), nor is there any possibility that modern science, or the modern world more generally, could overcome its own shortcomings. In this case, Nasr states:

Like other traditionalists, I am opposed to the modern world but this is the result of the application of first principles to the constituents of this world and not any “prejudice”. I am not blind to what is accidentally good in the modern world but oppose the premises upon which it

142

stands and the result that the culture it has created has had upon the mind and soul of those affected by it. I attribute both the disintegration of the social fabric in modern societies and the destruction of the natural environment to modernism and its’ false presumptions about the nature of man and the world. Liu would be surprised to know that there are many more people than he thinks, even in the West, who would slay the modern world if they could to reestablish a saner way of life. But they, like me, do not want literally to go back to the Middle Ages, which would, in any case, be impossible, but want to reestablish a social and intellectual order on the basis of traditional principles and to preserve what they can of the traditional world, much of which has been already lost. Liu underestimates the number of people in the West drawn to things medieval, from music and poetry to heraldry, because they see in them peace, security, and meaning lost in the frenzy of modern life which moves rapidly but towards nowhere.

Again he asserts:

Liu also seeks to defend modern science against my criticisms. He talks of ecology taking seriously the value of life and states, “it takes science to overcome science”. This claim will in fact only take place when another science of nature based on traditional principles, or what I have called “sacred science”, is accepted in the West once again. Otherwise, despite the effort of a few scientists here and there, the prevalent reductionism of science will continue and scientism will not cease to grow in strength by the day, while the applications of science in the form of technology protrude to an ever greater degree into the last bastion of “sacredness” in the West, which is the human person, at the same time also accelerating the destruction of the globe ecologically. And let us not forget that the empirical sciences are based just as much upon a particular philosophy of nature as were the traditional Chinese or Islamic sciences (Nasr 2001).

Therefore, Nasr appeals for the notion of Tawhid as a guiding principle of reconstruction. Nasr maintains that Tawhid leads us to a renewed metaphysics

143

in the hierarchical formulation of knowledge. He invokes Tawhid for the rediscovery of the primordial bond between the sacred and humanity. However, Nasr says that, it can happen in any major world religions but it contradicts with the religious scholars in this way that it can only occur in Islam because Tawhid is based on the Islamic principle. He refers to Tawhid from the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam both from ontological and epistemological levels.

Nasr uses the term exoteric to refer to the body of knowledge that shifts a religious adherent’s attention away from the exploration of the inner, mystical self toward adherence to rules and rituals. In exotericism, the focus of religion is toward external rules, regulations, and ceremonies rather than the inner meaning behind those rules, regulations, and ceremonies. Nasr uses the term esoteric to refer to the body of knowledge that’ shifts a religious adherent to the inner dimension of the religion that focuses on the mystical self, meditation, and enlightened knowledge. Nasr uses the term almost in an agnostic sense to refer to the knowledge of a religion that may be gained by seeking the mystical knowledge that comes from the Real. Therefore, when he states that fundamentalists emphasize the exoterics of Islam, he means that they adhere to the strict rules and laws of Islam as a sign of a dedicated Muslim. Nasr, being a Sufi Muslim, however, would tend to emphasize the esoteric or the mystical dimension of Islam, through prayer, meditation, and seeking after the Divine Revelation from the Real (Brooks 2008, 186).

Despite serious encroachments by modernism by the confusion caused within the mind and soul of certain Muslims caught between the pull of their tradition and Western ideologies and values, Islam remains very much a living tradition on both the exoteric and esoteric levels. Were this not so it would hardly be possible to speak of applying the teachings of Islam to the problems faced by modern man. If nothing had been left to Islam save some kind of sentimental or apologetic modern interpretation, one could hardly expect it to provide an antidote for the maladies caused by modernism itself (Nasr 2001, 86).

144

Nasr asserts that many Muslims were caught between the two positions of tradition and modernism. Some Muslims have been influenced by the modernistic ideologies but for Nasr Islam is a living tradition it remains the same on both levels exoteric and esoteric. For him, it is rich enough to face the challenge from the Western ideologies and will provide its own solution for the economic domination of the West. He proposes that if it would not be strong enough to face all kinds of challenges from the West it would have been finished. Nowadays, it would be very difficult for Islam to provide solutions for the modern man's crisis. Nasr lays more emphasis on the esoteric dimension of Islam but does not neglect the exoteric one to solve the problems of the modernism. Instead of being open to the contemporary changes in religion influenced by Contemporary trends, such as the role of women in Islam, Nasr seeks to maintain the Traditional doctrines and rituals of Islam. He believes that tradition is the transcendental whereas the other is anthropocentric in nature. He claims that all this spiritual poverty is the result of the disconnection between man and God and for him; any idea that disconnects themselves from the ideas of tradition and of God's revelation is responsible for the crisis. For him, modernity is anthropomorphic because it stands for everything human and negates anything which is transcendent. Thereby, Nasr suggests that to overcome the problem of modernity and postmodernity man should differentiate between the metaphysical and material knowledge. For him, only true metaphysical knowledge can save humanity from the crisis of modernity.

5.2 Critique of Islamic Modernists

Nasr addresses modernity in relation to Islam. He defended the traditional structure of Islam and its preachers like Ulama͑ and the legacy of Islamic civilization including Sufis. For him, Sufis are the real custodians and protectors of Islamic tradition, without them the continuity of Tradition would be endangered. For Nasr, they are criticized because of not knowing the European philosophy and science or the intricacies of modern economics and the like. According to Nasr, “in any case, the modernists have no right to

145

criticize the Ulama for a lack of knowledge of things, which they never received the opportunity to master” (Nasr 2001, 202203). However, his defense of the Ulama does not extend to the clerical regimes that seek political power through modern or revolutionary methods. He believes that these regimes are countertraditional. These scholars accommodate modernity with their religion or have shown some kind of compatibility with it. They made several attempts to modify traditional education with modern so that to gain financial and political power. Nasr calls this “Islamic Revivalism or Modernism” and referred them as Islamic Fundamentalist such as Salafi’s (Wahhabi Movement). He disagrees with these Islamic Modernists; they want to reform Islam through modernity. In reality, these Islamic reformists adopt the modern secular ideology and scientific technology to shape Islam in contemporary times. Although, these reformists acknowledge the basic traditional Islamic sources ‘Qurʾān and Shari’ah.’ However, for Nasr, the aim of those was to accommodate it with the modern secular science although to some extent they succeed in it, in real sense they deconstruct the real image and message of Islam, as Western modernists do with other traditions. These Islamic modernists had not delivered the original message of Islam but in a distorted way. They laid more emphasis on the exoteric dimension of Islam and ignore the esoteric dimensions as well as traditional commentaries of Islam.

Along with Nasr’s critical stand on Western and Islamic modernists, he himself seems completely different from its own circle of Islam. His defense of tradition is restricted neither to the four Sunni orthodox Schools of Law nor to the unmediated Islam of the original Salaf. In actuality, Nasr protects numerous parts of the Islamic heritage including the improvement of Shi’ism and Sufism, as well as Islamic art and architecture, Islamic Philosophy and science. Additionally, in contrast to the traditionalists, Nasr is very critical of the closure of ijtihad and he sees the Salafi movement is so soaked with the modernists that it becomes counter traditional. As per Nasr, in their refusal of the significance of Sufism, classical Islamic philosophy and traditional Islamic sciences, for example, astronomy, medicine, physics, chemistry, geometry and

146

in their endeavor to illustrate Islam’s compatibility with different Western intellectual patterns, the early Salafi reformers uncover their inadequacy. According to Nasr, their attempts at synthesis and compatibility either graft traditional concepts upon modern ones, neglecting the perennial truth of Islam, or they reduce Islam to a modifying adjective for the most incommensurable of systems (Nasr 2001, 201).

Nasr further adds that it is very easy to criticize the basic shortcomings of the traditional educational system (madrasa) but, it is very difficult to stand and criticize the basic fallacies of modern education. He says:

It is easy to point out that the life of students in traditional madāris is not hygienic, but it is much more difficult to take a firm stand and assert that much of what is taught in modern educational institutions is far more deadlyfor the soul of the studentsthan the physically unhealthy surroundings of some of the old madrasa buildings (Nasr 2001, 202).

In this sense, Nasr completely refused the attempt of Islamic modernist who wants to make a bridge between the traditional and modern educational institutions. He opposes the Western style of education and all the ‘isms’ that came from the West to affect the cultural and religious life of the Muslim world such as Marxism and socialism. However, he mentioned that Marxism has not directly attacked Islam at least in the Arab World but had an important indirect effect upon the religious life. For Nasr, Marxism within Muslims with direct political aim in mind had affected the mind and souls of Muslims and is more dangerous than antireligious stand (Nasr 2001, 210211).

Nasr’s analysis is that these Western ideologies either in the form of Marxism or Evolutionism, had adversely affected many Muslims across the globe. For him, the one among them is Iqbāl, the most influencing figure in the history of Muslims in the field of Urdu Poetry. Nasr claims that Iqbāl has shown an ambivalent attitude or lovehate relationship with Sufism. Nasr says that it is a fact that Iqbāl was, on one hand, a Sufi and advocating Islamic idea

147

of the Perfect Man ‘al-insan al-kamil’ and on the other influenced, by Nietzschean idea of the Superman. The two concepts, for Nasr, are the vary antipodes of each other and Iqbāl made a mistake in understanding them, in spite of his deep understanding of Islam. According to Nasr, Iqbāl takes the Western scientific conception of evolution too seriously and forgets the Islamic conception of the march of time. Nasr claims these kinds of tendencies were developed in various Muslim scholars; he says “instead of answering the fallacies of the theory of evolution, have tried to bend over backwards in an apologetic manner to accept it and even to interpret Islamic teachings according to it” (Nasr 2001, 213).

Nasr criticizes the Islamic reformists for escaping from the challenge posed by evolutionism, which for him is the epitome of the problems of scientism. For Nasr, in fact, the Darwinian theory of evolution is metaphysically impossible and logically absurd (Nasr 2001, 212). He has not accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific theory; it always remains a hypothesis and has never been proved across species. The theory has nothing proved yet, but only enables the forgetfulness of God in Modernists. According to Nasr, these Muslim reformers fall prey to Western intellectuals; they forget the Islamic metaphysics about eschatological events and the end of time and neglect the Aḥādīth that contradicts the modern evolutionism. Nasr rejected evolutionary theory because it contradicts concepts from traditional metaphysics regarding the cosmic hierarchy of the Great Chain of Being, where higher forms of life give birth to lower forms. Therefore, for Nasr, it needs to be adjusted to accord with metaphysics. He favours hierarchy whereas modernist believes in Darwin’s theory of evolution.

While, Nasr is right to insist on the possibility of reversing the process of disenchantment, he fails to justify his claim. For instance, Nasr’s denial, publicly at least, that his position has not been strongly influenced by modernity is disingenuous, because his insistence, based on a Hadith, that there is only decline and regress after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon

148

him), can be read as merely an inversion of the modern faith in unilinear evolutionary progress. Even though the Traditionalist position may refer to the Perennialist, hence premodern, belief in the archetypal Fall of Man, one cannot simply dismiss the fact that this reading of the inevitable decline of man is reactivated in the modern context of progress. The reactivation of Hadith exists indirectly in inverse relation to the modern notion of progress. Moreover, Nasr’s unrelenting criticism of evolutionism and progress overlooks the point that Darwin’s theory, like Spencer’s, has no inherent unilinear conception of progress; in Darwin’s work, at least, there is no hierarchy of species that would justify Nasr’s charge that evolution leads Man to forget God, because it suggests that Man can become perfect by means of evolution alone. If anything, Nasr could legitimately critique Darwin for his lack of teleology, for the lack of a purposeful view of evolution! (Zaidi 2007, 297) .

Another important criticism which Nasr posed for modern Psychology is the Freudian and Jungian interpretation of the psyche. Nasr writes:

The modern psychological and psychoanalytical standpoint tries to reduce all the higher elements of man’s being to the level of the psyche, and moreover to reduce the psyche itself to nothing more than that which can be studied through modern psychological and psychoanalytical methods (Nasr 2001, 215).

Nasr argued that this kind of philosophy and science has not directly affected Muslims as evolution does, but it is also the part of that science which is different from the Islamic point of view. Nasr cautioned Muslims for its further effect, but he feels fortunate until now Muslims were not influenced by Freudian psychoanalysis nor they felt the need for it. Nasr explained why there was not a need for a Muslim for such kind of Psychology. He says that it is because of the continuation of the practice of religious rites such as the daily prayers and pilgrimage as well as the practice of Sufism. Nasr further argues:

The supplications, “discourses” and forms of pleading that are carried out in religious centers by men, women, and children open the soul to

149

the influx of Divine Grace and are a most powerful means of curing the soul’s ailments and untying its knots. These forms of prayer achieve a goal which the psychoanalyst seeks to accomplish without success and moreover often with dangerous results, for he lacks the power which comes from the Spirit and which alone can dominate and heal the soul (Nasr 2001, 215216).

According to Nasr, the theory of psychoanalysis instead of treating the mind and soul of modern man has itself made them agnostic and against the very nature of religion. Modern man attempts to define and describe all things in this world through the scientific and psychological way to ascertain the truth, but he never knows that his own perception is limited and is going opposed to the nature of things. Nasr is too much critical of this kind of perspective which affected the Traditional Muslims art and literary valuesystem. He further added that Jungian psychology is more dangerous than Freudian in this regard that “it appears to be dealing with the sacred and the noumenal world whereas, in reality it is deforming the image of the sacred by confusing the spiritual and the psychological domains and subverting the luminous and transcendent source of archetypes into a collective unconscious which is no more than the dumping ground for the collective psyche of various people and their cultures” (Nasr 2001, 219). For Nasr, the whole psychology combined with atheistic and nihilistic way spread within the Islamic world in the form of the Western art and literature. It is the major challenge which Nasr observed in the Muslim world and for him; it can be only challenged by the Islamic psychology and psychoanalysis within Sufism and through the Islamic literary criticism.

Nasr’s ideology completely stands as opposed to the ideology of the modern world. He is critical of modern psychology, its application as well as its way of analyzing human behavior. The important fact in Nasr is that he criticizes all these things in relation to Islam and Sufism and on some occasions with other traditions. Same is the case with the opposition of existentialism and phenomenology, which he considers as the latest waves of modernism from the West reaching to the Muslim world in the form of positivism. For him, these

150

philosophies had not much effect on Muslims because they forget the meaning of Being in its traditional sense which for Nasr lies at the heart of Islamic philosophy. There were several attempts within the Islamic intellectuals to interpret Islamic philosophy in the light of the Western mode of thought; in Nasr’s understanding it is dangerous and against the nature of Traditional Islamic Philosophy. Nasr counters Western existentialism on the basis of Muslim philosophers like Ibn Sina, Suhrawardi and Sadar alDin Shirazi (Mullā Sadra). For Nasr, the metaphysics of these will readily understand the profound chasm which separates the traditional Islamic “Philosophy of Being” from the modern existentialism (Nasr 2001, 224).

Nasr further disagrees with the understanding of modernized Muslims, who believe and feel proud of themselves that Islam played a role in the rise of the Renaissance. Nasr rejects this claim and argues that they ignore the fact that what the modern world is facing today are the steps taken during the period of Renaissance by the West. Modern man rebelled against his Godgiven religion and Muslims should feel proud that they did not rebel against the religion.

5.3 Difference(s) Between Nasr and Modernists

We shall briefly outline the differences between Nasr and Modernists:

1. Nasr, being a Muslim (belongs to Traditionalist or Perennialist School) discusses modernity in relation with Traditionalism. He put forward a different kind of theological methodology to the problem of modernity without deconstructing or reconstructing components of the Islamic tradition. In his understanding, further reconstruction or deconstruction would violate the authority of Revelation and Tradition. His aim is to recover the traditional doctrines, practices and laws from Islam and as well as other religious traditions. He is confident that this theological methodology will address the problem of modernity. Through his theological method, he attempts to confirm the eternal validity of religious and philosophical truthclaims about the nature of reality. He brings out that religious claims are not humanconstructed truths, but are truths that are derive from the Divine Sources, what he often refers to

151

as the Principle or the Absolute. In this sense, what Nasr addresses is in connection with the relationship between religion and science and the role of God in the world because for Nasr these are the forces that shape our overall view of the natural world.

2. Nasr finds that the mechanistic and dualistic scientific worldview that developed in the West during the Enlightenment as a primary driver of the attitudes, technologies, and economic practices that has precipitated the ecological crisis.

3. Nasr envisions metaphysics as the supreme science which ultimately controls the natural sciences, and to which they must conform. For him, the conception of the universe, metaphysically and cosmologically speaking, is hierarchical. Nasr sees Nature as innately hierarchical, arranged from top to bottom in the Great Chain of Being, with God at the top and matter at the bottom, and human beings distinctly above the rest of creation.

4. Nasr opposes the egalitarianism of consumer culture and favours hierarchy. He opposes the idea of getting rid of the monarchical model. Which he says is basic in the Qurʾān, Bible, and Scriptures of other traditions or religions.

5. Nasr is different from the modernist’s approach of knowing things, he emphasizes that metaphysics and theology cannot be understood by masses, but it is reserved for those who are capable and qualified. For him, it is the supreme science dealing with the highest plane of reality, the divine; and all other sciences that deal with the physical world are seen as below and subordinate to metaphysics. One of the most remarkable differences that Nasr held is that he considered traditional religious truth as unchangeable and works as a supreme science whereas modern science is not. In this sense, the basic tension that emerges between the adherents of modernity and Tradition, Nasr proposes that for seeking unity between them, modern science must change to conform to religious truthclaims. However, modernists are opposed to this claim, they emphasize that religion must change to conform to scientific truthclaims. For Nasr, it is easy to claim that modern science can be operated and challenged by

152

religious principles, but it is practically more difficult for the modern man how to handle and accept both of them at the same time when both are contrary to each other and one is only based on theoretical and other on practical explanations. In fact, there are certain exceptions in scientific theories on which criticism can be forwarded such as for Nasr the theory of evolution which he believed is only hypothetical and not proved yet and several other scientific theories. For him, it has betrayed the eternal truth of tradition and produced distorted worldview. For him, there is a number of people who claim themselves traditionalist and follow some scientific theories for example theory of evolution, had intermingled religion with modern science and had misled common people. The aim of Nasr is to raise the consciousness in Muslims for valuing all religions as essentially equal and who are highly resistant to the Western colonialism.

6. Nasr claims that it should never be forgotten that in the present situation any form of criticism of the modern world based upon metaphysical and religious principles is an act of charity in its profound sense and in accordance with the most central virtues of Islam (Nasr 2001, 200).

Ibrahim Kalin has summarized the five main traits in Nasr’s philosophy, which highlight his basic analysis and critique of the errors of modern philosophical purview.

The first trait which Kalin writes is Nasr’s critical analysis of modern science, the secular view of the universe that sees no traces of the Divine in the natural order. Nature is no longer the vestigia Dei of Christian cosmology but a selfsubsistent entity that can be encapsulated exhaustively in the quantitative formulae of natural sciences (Kalin 2001, 453).

The second feature Kalin writes is Nasr’s critical analysis of modern science and the mechanization of the worldpicture upon the model of machines and clocks. Once couched in terms of mechanistic relations, Nature becomes something absolutely determinable and predictablea muchneeded safety zone for the rise of modern industrial society and capitalism. Nature had to be

153

construed as a machine in the full sense of the term so that the rise of industrial society could go ahead without any serious objection from religion or society, both of which were already made submissive to the undisputed authority of science. Interestingly enough, the very model through which the bare facts of Nature were to be discovered proved to be a clear indication of the philosophical outlook adopted by modern science: 'machine' or 'clock' is certainly not a phenomenon to be found in Nature but rather an invention of modern industrial society. Nasr sees the disastrous effects of the mechanistic view of the cosmos in this misconceived belief in science that has led to the eclipse of traditional ideas and values on the one hand, and to a number of modern disasters on the other. In addition to that, Nasr also insists that thinking about Nature in terms of machines is not the best way to deal with natural phenomena. As the history of premodern sciences shows, it is possible to study and make use of Nature without subscribing to a mechanistic worldview in which the intrinsic value of Nature and everything in it is deemed inconsequential for the progress of human society (Kalin 2001, 453455).

The third aspect of modern science, Kalin writes is Nasr’s critical analysis of modern rationalism and empiricism. For Nasr, rationalism and empiricism which, in spite of their historical rivalry, complement each other in a number of surprising ways. First of all, both rationalism and empiricism as the two progenies of the Enlightenment reject the great chain of Being, namely the hierarchical view of the universe which lies at the heart of traditional sciences. Instead, modern rationalism constructs a worldpicture within the limits of reason alone while empiricism takes a similar position by reducing reality to the least common denominator, i.e., the sense experience. The philosophical roots of Enlightenment humanism can thus be traced back to this epistemological straitjacket imposed upon our perception of the world by rationalism and empiricism. Secondly, both of these schools take the knowing subject, the cogito of Descartes, to be the sole possessor of meaning and intelligibility thus paving the way for a subjectivist epistemology. Although the cosmology of modern science at the hands of Galileo supposedly invalidated the Christian

154

view of the universe that regarded the world as the center of the cosmos, modern epistemology put the modern man back at the center by assigning to him the role of being the Promethean 'creator' of the world. Thirdly, both rationalism and empiricism adopt what E. Nagel calls the 'view from nowhere' standpoint according to which man is disengaged from the world in which he is ineluctably included and able to see the world by himself from a Godlike vantage point. As I have mentioned earlier, modern rationalism, according to Nasr and the traditional school, rests on a serious misunderstanding of the notion of 'reason' when it relegates the intellect to calculation and analysis. Modern empiricism, on its part, falls into a similar predicament by repudiating any principle higher than sense perception (Kalin 2001, 453456).

The fourth trait Kalin highlighted in Nasr’s Critique is the legacy of Cartesian dualism that presupposes a complete separation between res cogitans and res extensa, that is, between the knowing subject and the object to be known. With this cleavage, the epistemological alienation of man from Nature comes to completion by leaving behind a torrent of pseudoproblems in modern philosophy, the notorious mindbody problem being a special case in point (Kalin 2001, 453).

The last important aspect which Kalin highlighted in Nasr’s critique of modern science is in a sense a culmination of the foregoing features, and it is the exploitation of Nature as a source of power and dominationa fact not unknown to modern capitalist society (Kalin 2001, 453).

5.4 Conclusion

The above arguments of Nasr regarding modern epistemology, rationality and modernity as a worldview that encompasses sociopolitical and economic developments can be expressed in one upshot, i.e. Nasr criticized everything that is modern.

He believes that traditional epistemology was more comfortable, reasonable, and was explaining everything in the universe more properly and Naturefriendly, but it is obvious that what modern epistemology resolved and

155

explained through its analytical, phenomenological, scientific, inductive and deductive methods; traditional epistemology has not explained it in that sense. However, Nasr argues that traditional epistemology relies on Scriptures and Revelation, intuitive and intellective methods to understand the knowledge but in the modern era these methods and sources cannot explain all those things which modern epistemology does.

Nasr further argues that modern way of investigating things means modern epistemology and metaphysics cannot have an authoritarian claim and cannot be set as criteria for evaluation. Then how can the traditional epistemology be the same and can claim for authority. Nasr claims that it only deals with the materialistic and physical world. It has not dealt with the Metaphysical Realities, yes, of course, it is a fact that modern epistemology and metaphysics has not succeeded in explaining the metaphysical Realities like God and soul, but Tradition explained it through Revelation and Scriptures. It is another issue that different traditions have different perceptions about the metaphysical Realities. They did not agree with each other. However, this is one of the important limitation of traditions that there is not seen any certainty and absoluteness in explaining metaphysical Realities. Therefore, there are huge clashes among traditions in defining and defending the concepts of God and the soul.

Nasr criticized modernity on sociopolitical and economic platforms. This point can also be critically evaluated from both perspectives. If we take it from the Traditional perspective, it is obvious that modernity on economic level raises several issues like capitalism, exploitation of natural resources, more production and consumerism; it destroys natural architecture and builds artificial architecture to make Earth beautiful. From political level, it develops new concepts like Nation and State, Democracy and Secularism and so no. It is a fact that these ideologies deviates man from the Tradition and these are the issues on which Nasr opposes modernity but on the other hand, during the age of Tradition people were living in miseries like poverty, disease, regional

156

clashes, dictatorship, misgovernance, inequality and all other illeffects of the Tradition. Hence, Nasr's opposition to modernity as a worldview creates crisis but he neglects the fact that in Tradition man was suffering more than modern age. In response to inequality, Nasr argues that Islam provides egalitarian order, there is no bias on the basis of color and race, but this system is not present in every Tradition. However, he attempted to relate tradition with the perennial wisdom which he says, lies in every religion and is like Sophia Perennis of the Western tradition, Sanatana Dharma in Hindus and al-Hikmat al-Khalidah in Muslims (Nasr 1989, 65).

The important fact in Nasr and perennialists is that they accept and support religious pluralism and it is considered as a core feature in Nasr’s and perennial philosophy. But, religious pluralism is conflicting with Islamic Principles. Islam does not allow any follower to practice other religious practices, it does not allow idolatry or any form of worship or faith in any other religion. If anyone does it; it is being rejected and punished according to Islamic teachings. In this sense, Islam does not have any space for religious pluralism. But, Nasr claims that religious pluralism does exist in Islam. Here, Nasr is once again contradicting with the Islamic principles.

At another place, Nasr criticized those organizations, schools and movements that try to revive and reconcile Islamic Shari’ah either in the form of political, religious or in any other sense, such as JamatiIslami, Wahhabism and Deoband School in India. Nasr labelled them as Islamic fundamentalists and called them pseudotraditionalist. For him, they are equivalent to the Western modernists; in the name of reforms, they weakened traditional Islam. However, Nasr accepts the fact that they believe in the basic sources of Islam, like the Quran, Hadith and Shari'ah but, they deviate from traditional Islam. Here, Nasr is once again neglecting the fact that these schools are working on the fundamental principles of Islam and are confronting modernisation too, but in their own way. For him, their aim is political and economic and their critique to modernism is less moderate than that of traditionalists (Nasr 1994, 17).

157

Regarding the Sufi Cosmology especially Rumi’s cosmology it is important to express two concerns. First, many Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims do not accept Rumi's interpretations of Islam and do not consider them authentic. Second, this they mean that Rumi's views are not consistent with many other Muslims. His eccentric Sufi mysticism does not always attract the mainstream orthodox interpretations of the Islamic cosmology that some Muslims follow. For example, Carl Ernst maintains that Sufism is a highly contested subject, and while its origins lie in the Islamic religious tradition, aspects of Sufism have been strongly criticized by reformist and fundamentalist Muslim thinkers in recent years. Moreover, Ernst claims that Sufism has been regarded by scholars who uphold a certain understanding of Islam as a nonIslamic borrowing. Additionally, some modern Sufi teachers view Sufism as universal teaching apart from Islam. As a result, one can see the difficulty in attempting to develop an Islamic environmental ethic by utilizing a Sufi figure's understanding of Islam that may or may not be regarded as an authentic interpretation of Islam, including the Qur'anic themes about human ecology (Carl 1999, ix).

The conclusion that emerges from the above discussion is that; this study deliberated the discourse on the concepts of modernity and postmodernity, and presented a critique of modernity and also revealed the significance of Tradition and at the same time it presented various challenges to Nasr's standpoint. This work has carried out the theological and analytical investigation to arrive at a deeper understanding of Nasr's arguments. Nasr has figured out that there are various faults in modernity; such as, the loss of the sacred values with the rise of secularism, the loss of intrinsic values with the rise of rationality, the loss of art and aesthetics with the industrialization and technology, and the loss of traditional worldview with the emergence of modernization.

However, modernists are unaware of the spiritual crisis of modern man, the devastation of the environment, the evils of colonialism and neo

158

colonialism, the demoralization of the family valuesystem. Traditionalists are also unaware of the benefits of modernity, for example; the increase in literacy rate and easy access to education for all, and better health and hygiene. Therefore, the benefits of modernity cannot be ignored. Thus, the fact is that nothing should be accepted or rejected on the basis of the dogmas of both modernity and traditionalism. There are various valid and invalid points in both modernity and traditionalism, which seem to be good or bad respectively. But, both Traditionalists and modernists ignore these points.

159

Reference Apter, David. The Politics of Modernization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.

Brooks, Page Matthew. A comparison of reaction to postmodernity and its influence on theological method in the works of Alister MaGrath and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Eisenhower parkway: ProQuest, 2008.

Carl, Ernst. The Teachings of Sufism. Boston & London: Shambala, 1999.

Gazo, Ernest Wolf. Nasr and the Quest for the Sacred. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Randall E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone, JR. Lewis Edwin Hahn. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company: The library of Living philosophers, 2001.

Halpern, Manfred. "Toward Further Modernization of the Study of New Nations." World Politics (World Politics) XVII, no. 1 (1964): 157181.

Kalin, Ibrahim. The Sacred versus the Secular: Nasr on Science. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy Of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Randall E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone, Jr. Lewis Edwin Hahn. Chicago: Open court publishing company: The library of Living Philosophers, 2001.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Islam and the Plight of Modern Man. Chicago: ABC International Group, Inc., 2001.

—. Knowledge and the Sacred. New York: Albany, State University of New York Press,, 1989.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Reply to Ernest Wolf-Gazo. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Lucian W. Stone Lewis Edwin Hahn. Randall E. Auxier. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company: The Library of Living Philosophers, 2001.

—. Traditional Islam in the Modern World. London: Kegan Paul International, 1994.

Rahman, F. the philosophy of Mulla Sadra Shirazi. Sunny, 1975.

Zaidi, Ali Hassan. Islam, Modernity And The Human Sciences: Toward A Dialogical Approach. Canada: Published Heritage Branch, 2007.

161

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. General Books

Ahmed, Akbar S. Postmodernism and Islam: Predicament and promise. London and New York: Routledge, 2003.

Apter, David. The Politics of Modernization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.

Aslan, Adnan. Religious Pluralism in Christian and Islamic Philosphy: The Thought of John Hick and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005.

Barrett, Terry. Modernism and Postmodernism: An overview with art examples. Washington DC: Art Education, 1997.

Bauman, Z. The Fall Of The Legislator, in T. Docherty Postmodernism, a reader. Hemel Hempstead: Hamester, Wheatsheaf, 1993.

Berman, Art. Preface to Modernism. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994.

Berube, Maurice R. Beyond Modernism and Postmodernism: Essays on the Politics of Culture. London: Bergin & Garvey, 2002.

Brooks, Page Matthew. A comparision of reaction to postmodernity and its influence on theological method in the works of Alister MaGrath and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Eisenhower parkway: ProQuest, 2008.

Cahoone, Lawrence E. From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1996.

162

Calichman, Richard F. (ed. & trans.) What is Modernity? Writings of Takeuchi Yoshimi. New York: Columbia University press, 2005.

Calinescu, Matei. Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avant-garde, Decadence, Kitsch, Postmodernism. Durham: Duke University Press, 1987.

Carl, Ernst. The Teachings of Sufism. Boston & London: Shambala, 1999.

Chittick, William C. The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination. New York: State University of New York Press Albany, 1989.

Chittick, William C. ed. The Essential Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Canada: World Wisdom, 2007.

Delanty, Gerard. Modernity and Postmodernity, Knowledge, Power and Self. London, New Delhi: Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2000.

Doshi, S.L. Modernity, Postmodernity and Neo-Sociological Theories. Jaipur and New Delhi: Rawat publications, 2003.

Francks, Richard. Modern Philosophy: The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. London: Routledge, 2003.

Giddens, Anthony & Christopher Pierson. Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity. California: Stanford University Press, 1998.

Giddens, Anthony. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1990.

Guenon, Rene. Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines. Translated by Marco Pallis. London: Luzac & Co., 1945. 163

Guenon, Rene. The crisis of the modern world. Translated by Marco Pallis, et.al, Sophia Perennis, 2001.

Habermas, Jurgen. Modernity: An Unfinished Project, In the postmodern reader. Edited by Charles Jencks. New York: St. Martin's, 1992.

Habermas, Jurgen. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures. Translated by Frederick Lawrence, Cambridge UK: Polity Press, 1987.

Herlihy, John. ed. The Essential Rene Guenon: Metaphysics, Tradition, and the Crisis of Modernity. Bloomington: World Wisdom, Inc., 2009.

Huxley, Aldous. The Perennial Philosophy. London: Chatto and windus, 1947.

Kalin, I. An Annotated Bibliography of the Works of Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi (Mulla Sadra) with a Brief Account of His Life. Islamic Studies, 2003.

Kalin, I. Knowledge in Later Islamic Philosophy: Mulla Sadra on Existence, Intellect and Intuition. Oxford University Press, 2010.

Kamal, Muhammad. Mulla Sadra's Transcendent Philosophy. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing, 2006.

Kazmi, Latif Hussain S. ed. Studies in Islamic Philosophy: Classical Islamic Thought. Part One, Aligarh: Aligarh Muslim University press, 2012-13.

Kazmi, Latif Hussain S. ed. Studies in Islamic Philosophy: Modern Islamic Thought. Part Two, Aligarh: Aligarh Muslim University press, 2009-10.

Larrain, Jorge. Identity and Modernity in Latin America. UK, Malden, MA: Cambridge, polity, Blackwell, 2000.

164

Lings, Martin. What is Sufism? Lahore: Suhail Academy Lahore Pakistan, 2005.

Marshall, Berman. All that is Solid Melts into Air: The experence of Modernity. New York, USA: Penguin, 1988.

Marshall, David. ed. Tradition and Modernity: Christian and Muslim Perspectives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2013.

Meuleman, Johan. ed. Islam in the Era of Globalization: Muslim attitudes towards modernity and identity. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002.

Mevorach, Ian. In Search of Christian-Muslim common path from Desacralization to Resacralization of Nature: Sallie Mcfague and Seyyed Hossein Nasr on the Ecological Crisis. Ann Arbor: ProQuest, 2015.

Mutahhari, Murtaza. ed. Man and Universe. Karachi: Islamic Seminary Publications, 1990.

Oldmeadow, Harry. ed. The Betrayal of Tradition: Essays on the Spiritual Crisis of Modernity. Bloomington Indiana: World Wisdom, 2005.

Oldmeadow, Harry. Frithof Schuon and the Perennial Philosophy. Bloomington, Indiana: World Wisdom, Inc., 2010.

Oser, Lee. The Ethics of Modernism: Moral ideas in Yeats, Eliot, Joyce, Woolf and Becket. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Pericles, Lewis. Modernism, Nationalism and the Novel. UK: Cambridge University press, 2000.

165

Pickthall, Muhammad Marmaduke. The Qur'aan With English translation. Lahore Pakistan: Qudrat Ullah Co.

Quadir, Tariq M. Traditional Islamic Environmentalism, The Vision of Seyyed Hossein Nasr. UK: University press of America, 2013.

Rabate, Jean-Michel. A Handbook of Modernism Studies. Oxford, UK: Wiley- Blackwell, 2013.

Rafiabadi, Naseem H. & Aadil Amin. The Attitude of Islam towards Science and Philosophy. Translation of Ibn Rushd’s Faslul-al-Maqal. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons, 2003.

Rahman, Fazlur. Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.

Richard C. Foltz, Frederick, Baharuddin, ed. Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed Trust. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Ross, Stephen. ed. Modernism and theory: A Critical Debate. London and New York: Routledge, 2009.

Russell, Bertrand. History of Western Philosophy. London and New York: Routledge, 2004.

Sadra, M. Al-Hikmat al-Muta’aliya fi al-Asfar al-Aqliyya al-Arba’a. Tehran: Bonyad-e Sadra, 2011.

Sadra, M. Al-Masha ‘ir, Translation by Parviz Morewedge. New York: SSIP, 1992.

—. Al-shawahid al-rububiyyah. Edited by Sayyid Jalal al-Din Ashtiyani. Meshed Tehran: The University Press, 1967.

166

Saritopark, Zeki. Islamic Spirituality; Theology and Practice for the Modern World. USA: Bloomsbury, 2018.

Schuon, Frithjof. The Transcendent Unity of Religions. Chennai: Quest Books, Theosophical Publishing House, wheaton, 2005.

Sharif, M. M. ed. A History of Muslim Philosophy. Vol. 1. Otto Harrassowitz: Pakistain Philosophical Congress, 1963.

Sharif, M. M. ed. A History of Muslim Philosophy. Vol. 2. Otto Harrassowitz: Pakistan Philosophical Congress, 1966.

Shirazi, S. A. D. M. Al-Hikmah al-‘arshiyyah, The Wisdom of the Throne. Translation by James Morris, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.

Sweetman, Brendan. ed. The failure of modernism the cartesain legacy and contemporary pluralism. Indiana: American maritain association publications, 1999.

Thanwi, Moulana Ashraf A. Answer to Modernism, “Al- Intibahat al- Mufeedah”, Translation by Hasan Askari & Karrar H. New Delhi: Adam Publishers, 2004.

Toulmin, Stephen. Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Zaborowski, Holger. Robert Sparmann’s Philosophy of the Human Person: Nature, Freedom, and the Critique of Modernity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Zaidi, Ali Hassan. Islam, Modernity and the Human Sciences: Toward a Dialogical Approach. Ottawa Canada: Published Heritage Branch, 2007.

167

Zima, Peter V. Modern/Postmodern, Society, Philosophy, Literature. London and NewYork: Continuum international publishing group, 2010.

2. Seyyed Hossein Nasr Books

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. A Young Muslim Guide to the Modern World. Chicago: Khazi Publications, Inc, 2003.

—. Ideals And Realities Of Islam. Chicago: ABC International Group, Inc., 2000.

—. An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrines: Conception of Nature and Methods used for its study by the Ikhwan Al-Safa, Al-Biruni, and Ibn Sina. Great Britain: Thames and Hudson, 1978.

—. Islam and the Flight of Modern Man. Chicago: ABC International Group, Inc., 2001.

—. Islam In The Modern World: Challenged by the West, Threatened by the Fundamentalism, Keeping Faith with Tradition . New York USA: HarperCollines, 2010.

—. Islam, Religion, History, and Civilization. New York: HarperCollins e- books, 2003.

—. Islamic Art and Spirituality. New York: State University of New York, 1987.

—. Islamic Life and Thought. Malaysia: Islamic Book Trust, 2010.

—. Islamic Philosophy from its Origin to the Present: Philosophy in the Land of Prophecy. New York: State University of New York Press, 2006.

168

—. Islamic Science: An Illustrated Study. World of Islamic Festival Publishing Company Ltd, 1987.

__. Islamic Studies: Essay on Law and Society, the Sciences, and Philosophy and Sufism. Beruit: Syteco Press (1967).

—. Knowledge and the Sacred. New York: Albany, State University of New York press, 1989.

—. Living Sufism. London: Mandala books Unwin Paperbacks, 1980.

—. Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1968.

—. Religion and The Order of Nature. New York: Oxford University press, 1996.

—. Science and Civilisation in Islam. Chicago: ABC International Group, Inc., 2001.

—. Sufi Essays. London: Schocken books, 1977.

__. Sufism and the Integration of the Inner and Outer Life of Man: The L M Singhvi Interfaith Lecture for the Year 1999. London: Temenos Academy, (2004).

—. The Garden of Truth: The Vision and Promise of Sufism, Islam's Mystical Tradition. New Yorrk USA: HarperCollines, 2008.

—. The Heart of Islam, Enduring Values for Humanity. UK: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2004.

—. The Need For the Sacred Science. UK: Curzon Press, 1993.

169

—. The Philosophy of Mulla Sadra Shirazi. New York: State University of New York Press, 1975.

__. The Pilgrimage of Life and the Wisdom of Rumi. Foundation for Traditional Studies, 2007.

—. Three Muslim Sages: Avicenna- Suhrawardi- Ibn 'Arabi. Delmar New York: Caravan Books, 1997.

—. Traditional Islam in the Modern World. London: Kegan Paul International, 1994.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein & Katherine O'Brien. ed. The Essential Sophia. World Wisdom, Inc., 2006.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, and Katherine O'brien. ed. In Quest of the Sacred: the Modern World in the Light of Tradition. Foundation for Traditional Studies, 1994.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein & Ramin Jahanbegloo. ed. In Search of the Sacred; A Conversation with Seyyed Hossein Nasr on His Life and Thought. California: Praeger, ABC-CLIO, LLC Santa Barbara, 2010.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein & Mehdi Aminrazavi. ed. An Anthology of Philosophy of Persia: Philosophycal theology in the Middle Ages and Beyond. Vol. 3. London, New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers & Co Ltd, 2010.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein & Muzaffar Iqbal. ed. Islam, Science, Muslims and Technology. Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust, 2007.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. ed. Islamic Spirituality: Manifestations. New York: World Spirituality, 1991.

170

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. ed. The Encyclopaedia of Islamic Spirituality. London: Routledge And Kegan Paul, 2008.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. ed. The Essential Frithjof Schuon. Canada Bloomington: World Wisdom, 2005.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. ed. Shi'ism: Doctrines, Thought, and Spirituality. New York: State University of New York, 1988.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, et.al. The Study Quran: A new Translation with Notes and Commentary. New York: HarperCollines (2015).

Hahn, Lewis Edwin. et.al. ed. The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Chicago: The library of Living Philosophers, Open court Publishing Company, 2001.

3. Seyyed Hossein Nasr Articles

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. "A Muslim Reflection on Religion and Theology." Journal of Ecumenical Studies (1980): 112-120.

____. "Comments on a few theological issues in the Islamic-Christian dialogue." Christian-Muslim Encounters (1995): 457-67.

____. "Contemporary man between the Rim and Axis." Studies in Comparative Religion 7, no. 2 (Spring 1973). www.studiesincomparativereligion.com

____. "Intellect and intuition: Their relationship from the Islamic perspective." Studies in Comparative Religion 13, no. 1 (1979). http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/Intellect_a

171

nd_Intuition-Their_Relationship_from_the_Islamic_Perspective- by_Seyyed_Hossein_Nasr.aspx

____. "Islam and the Encounter of Religions." Islamic Quarterly 10, no. 3-4 (1966): 47-68.

____. "Islam and the environmental crisis." Islamic Quarterly 34, no. 4 (1990).

____. "Islam and the problem of modern science." Islam & Science 8, no. 1 (2010): 63-75.

____. "Islam and the West: Yesterday and today." The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 13, no. 4 (1996): 551-562.

____. "Islam, the Contemporary Islamic World, and the Environmental Crisis." Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed Trust, Harvard University Press (2003): 85-105.

____. "Islamic education and science: A summary appraisal." The Islamic Impact (1984): 47-68.

____. "Islamic Science, Western Science Common Heritage, Diverse Destinies." The Revenge of Athena: science, exploitation, and the Third World (1988): 239-248.

____. "Islamic work ethic." Turkish Journal of Business Ethics 2, no. 1 (2009): 143-151.

____. "Islamic-Christian dialogue: problems and obstacles to be pondered and overcome." Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 11, no. 2 (2000): 213-227.

____. "Man in the Universe Permanence Amidst Apparent Change." Studies in comparative Religion, world wisdom, 2, no. 4 (1968). 172

____. "Mullā ṣadrā: His teachings." History of Islamic philosophy 1 (1996): 643-662.

____. "On the teaching of philosophy in the Muslim World." Hamdard Islamicus 4, no. 2 (1981): 53-72.

____. "Oral transmission and the book in Islamic education: The spoken and the written word." Journal of Islamic Studies 3, no. 1 (1992): 1-14.

____. "Qur'an." Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Diakses pada (2007): 11-4.

____. "Reflections on Islam and Modern Life." Al-Serat-A Journal of Islamic Studies 7, no. 1 (1980).

____. "Reflections on Islam and Modern Thought." Studies in Comparative Religion (World Wisdom, Inc.) 15, no. 3 & 4 (1983).

____. "Reflections on man and the future of civilization." Islamic Studies (Islamabad) 32, no. 3 (1993).

____. "Reflections on methodology in the Islamic sciences." Hamdard Islamicus 3 (1981): 1-11.

____. "Religion and Environmental Crisis: An Oriental Overview." Indian International Centre Quartely (Spring) 18, no. 1 (1991): 113-128.

____. "Religion and Secularism." The Islamic Quarterly Review 6, no. 3 (1961): 124-125.

____. "Religion in Safavid Persia." Iranian Studies 7, no. 1-2 (1974): 271-286.

____. "Revelation, Intellect and Reason in the Quran." In International Islamic Conference, February 1968: English papers, no. 18 (1970).

173

____. "Rūmī and the Sufi Tradition." Studies in Comparative Religion (World Wisdom, Inc.) 8, no. 2 (Spring 1974) 169-185.

____. "Sacred science and the environmental crisis: An Islamic perspective." Islam and the environment (1998): 118-137.

____. "Spiritual movements, philosophy and theology in the Safavid Period." The Cambridge History of Iran 6 (1986): 656-697.

____. "Spirituality and science: Convergence or divergence." The Essential Sophia (2006): 207-218.

____. "Standing before god: Human responsibilities and human rights." Humanity before god (2006): 209-237.

____. "The concept and reality of freedom in Islam and Islamic civilization." The philosophy of human rights (1980): 95-101.

____. "The Immutable Principles of Islam and Western Education: Reflections on the Aga Khan Chair of Islamic Studies at the American University of Beirut." The Muslim World 56, no. 1 (1966): 4-9.

____. "The Islamic philosophers’ views on education." Muslim Education Quarterly 2, no. 4 (1984): 5-16.

____. "The Islamic View of Christianity." Journal of KATHA 4, no. 1 (2018): 94-106.

____. "The Islamic world view and modern science." MAAS journal of Islamic science 10, no. 2 (1994): 33-50.

____. "The Meaning and Role of Philosophy in Islam." Studia Islamica 37 (1973): 57-80.

174

____. "The Pertinence of Studying Islamic Philosophy Today." Islamic Life and Thought. Islamic Book Trust (2010): 145-152.

____. "The Role of the Traditional Sciences in the Encounter of Religion and Science–An Oriental Perspective." Religious Studies 20, no. 4 (1984): 519-541.

____. "The Significance of Comparative Philosophy for the Study of Islamic Philosophy." Studies in Comparative Religion 7, no. 4 (1973): 1-9.

____. "The Significance of Persian Philosophical Works." Essays on Islamic Philosophy and Science, State University of New York Press, Syracuse New York (1975).

____. "The Spiritual and Religious Dimentions Of The Environmental Crisis." The Ecologist: Research Library 30, no. 1(Jan/Feb 2000): 18-20.

____. "The Spiritual Message of Islamic Calligraphy." Religion, Art, and Visual Culture: A Cross-Cultural Reader 113 (2002).

____. "The very existence of Sufism implies criticism of and challenge to the orthodox theology.—Fazlur Rehman Sufism (is) the marrow of the bone or the inner, esoteric dimension of the Islamic revelation." The Philosophical Aspects of Sufism (1989): 89-113.

____. "To Live in a World with No Center—and Many." Cross Currents 46, no. 3 (1996): 318-325.

____. "We and You—Let us Meet in God’s Love." In 1st Catholic-Muslim Forum Seminar, Vatican City (2008).

____. "Who is man? The perennial answer of Islam." Studies in Comparative Religion 2, no. 1 (1968): 31-38.

175

____. "The Western world and its challenges to Islam." Islamic Quarterly 17, no. 1 (1973)

____. "Islam and music." Studies in Comparative Religion 10, no. 1 (1976): 37-45.

____. “Religion and the Environmental Crisis: The Views of Hinduism and Islam.” Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, (1993).

____. “Western Science and Asian Cultures.” New Delhi: Indian Council for Cultural Relations, (1976).

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, interview by Nevad Kahteran. The Interview with Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Kyoto Bulletin of Islamic Area Studies 3, no. 1 (07 2009): 272-281.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, P. Zaleski, And C. Zaleski. "Traditional Cosmology and Modern Science-An Interview with Nasr, Seyyed, Hossein." (1983): 20- 31.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Intellectual Autobiography of Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn, Randall E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone, Jr. Chicago: Open court publishing company, Library of living philosophers, 2001.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Reply to Ernest Wolf-Gazo. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn, Randall E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone, Jr. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company: The Library of Living Philosophers, 2001.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Reply to Ibrahim Kalin. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hosssein Nasr, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn,

176

Randall E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone, Jr. Chicago: Open court publishing company: The Library of Living Philosophers, 2001.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Reply to Shu-Hsien Liu. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn, Randall E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone, Jr. Chicago: Open court publishing company: The Library of Living Philosophers, 2001.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Reply to Willam C. Chittick. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn, Randall E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone, Jr. Chicago: Open Court Publishing company: The Library of living philosophers, 2001.

Norton, Michael Barnes. "An interview with Seyyed Hossein Nasr: Scripture, society, and traditional wisdom." Journal of Philosophy & Scripture 2, no. 1 (2004): 39-43.

4. General Articles

Abaza, Mona. "A Note on Henry Corbin and Seyyed Hossein Nasr: Affinities and Differences." The Muslim World (ATLAS) 90 (2000): 91-107.

Aslan, Adnan. "Religious Pluralism In Islam." Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization (Fall) (2011): 35-47.

Bishnoi, Dr.Kishna Ram, Narsi Ram Bishnoi. "Religions' Attitude Towards Nature: An Overview." In Religion and Environment, by Kishna Ram Bishnoi, Haryana, India: Guru Jambheshwar University, (2002): 25-44.

Bourdeau, PH. "The Man-Nature relationship and environmental ethics." Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 72, no. 1-2 (2004): 9-15.

177

Gazo, Ernest Wolf. Nasr and the Quest for the Sacred. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn, Randall E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone, Jr. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company: The libarary of Living philosophers, 2001.

Gillespie, Michael Allen. "The theological origins of modernity." Critical Review 13, no. 1-2 (1999): 1-30.

Habermas, Jurgen and Seyla Ben-Habib. “Modernity versus Postmodernity.” New German Critique, Duke University Press, no. 22 (1981): 1-14

Halpern, Manfred. "Toward Further Modernization of the Study of New Nations." World Politics (World Politics) XVII, no. 1 (1964): 157-181.

Heidegger, Martin. "The question concerning technology." Technology and values: Essential readings 99 (1954): 113.

Kohandel, Hossein & Lone, Jan Mohammad. “Unity of Existence in Philosophy of Sankara and Mulla Sadra.” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational Research, 4, no. 6-4 (2015): 100-119.

Iqbal, Muzffar. "The Islamic Perspective on the Environmental Crisis: Seyyed Hossein Nasr in conversation with Muzaffar Iqbal." Islam and Science 5, no. 1 (2007). 75-97.

Kalin, I. Reason and Rationality in Quran. http://muslimheritage.com/article/reason-and-rationality-quran

Kalin, Ibrahim. The sacred versus the secular: Nasr on science. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn, Randall E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone, Jr. Chicago: open Court publishing company, The Library of Living Philosophers, 2001.

178

Kant, Immanuel. "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?" In What is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-Century Answers and Twentieth Century Question, edited by Schmidt J. Berkely: University of California Press, 1996.

Kemal, Salim. "Aesthetic licence: Foucault's modernism and Kant's postmodernism." International journal of philosophical studies 7, no. 3 (1999): 281-303.

Khan, Wahiduddin. "Spirituality in Islam; an Intellectual Process." Spirit of Islam; Towards Spiritual Living (Fathima Sarah), no. 26 (February 2015): 10-17.

Legenhausen, Hajj Muhammad. "Responding to the Religious Reasons of Others: Resonance and Non-Reducitve Religious Pluralism." European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 5, no. 2 (2013): 23-46.

Legenhausen, Muhammad. Al-Islam.Org. November tuesday, 2018. https://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol14-n4/misgivings-about- religious-pluralisms-seyyed-hossein-nasr-and-john-hick-dr-

Legenhausen, Hajj Muhammad. "Why I Am Not a Traditionalist." URL: https://english.religion.info/2002/03/31/document-why-i-am-not-a- traditionalist/

Michael, Allen Gillespie. The Theological origins of modernity, Critical Review, 13, no.1-2 (1999): 1-30.

Monastra, Giovannil. Seyyed Hossein Nasr: Religion Nature and Science. Vol. XXVIII, in The Philosophy of Seyyed hossein Nasr, edited by Randalle E. Auxier, Lucian W. Stone, JR. Lewis Edwin Hahn. Chicago: Open Court publishing company: The Library of Living Philosophers, 2001.

179

Moris, Zailan. Revelation, Intellectual Intuition and Reason in the Philosophy of Mulla Sadra: An analysis of the al-Hikmah al-'Arshiyyah. Vol. 10. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003.

Oldmeadow, Harry. "Tradition and the False Prophets of Modernism." The Matheson Trust (Sacred Web), (2007): 1-15.

Singh, Raghwendra Pratap. "Michel Foucault: A Critique of Immanuel Kant." Indian Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. XXIV, no. 1 (1997).

Ubudiyyat, A. R. An Introduction to Mulla Sadrā’s Theosophical System: Ontology and Cosmology. Vol. 1. 2007.

Upton, Charles. "What is a “Traditionalist”? — Some Clarifications." Sacred Web, A Journel of Tradition and Modernity. http://www.sacredweb.com/online_articles/sw17_upton.html

Wersal, Lisa. "Islam and environmental ethics: tradition responds to contemporary challenges." Zygon® 303 (1995): 451-459.

Zhang, Chenggang. "The evolution of rationality and modernity crisis." Sociology Mind 3, no. 02 (2013): 179.

5. Unpublished Sources

Schwencke, A.M. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Traditionalism, Islamic Esotericism & Environmental Ethics. Leiden, Netherland: Unpublished BA dissertation Leiden University Netherland, 2009.

180

6. Websites

 The Seyyed Hossein Nasr Foundation. 1996-2018. https://www.nasrfoundation.org/biography.html  Contributors, Wikipedia. Modernism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/modernism  Merriam-Webster Inc. Merriam-Webster, Since 1828. 2018. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition  http://www.sacredweb.com/online_articles/  https://www.al-islam.org/  https://www.themathesontrust.org/authors/seyyed-hossein-nasr  https://www.al-islam.org/person/seyyed-hossein-nasr  https://www.alislam.org/search/site/islamic%20%20spirituality?f%5B0 %5D=bundle%3Aarticle  https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/islamic-spirituality-9781472572059/

7. Lectures on YouTube by Seyyed Hossein Nasr

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GkG0op3C4Q  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIjW1z-ZAX8  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTHGZpu1rP4  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Eq9BUVwFPY  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asTPBo9ei1M  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOgTP-Amr-s  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IV5AyXYNL4

181