Islam is currently viewed critically, both by those who seek to reexamine and reapply it to the modern world and those who seek to debunk and discredit it as antiquated. These critiques closely examine the context upon which Islam burst into the world and how this specific context has affected its conception, maturation, and current existence in the modern world.

Context plays an undeniable role in the codification of any ideology. Emphasis on the context of the revelation of the Qur’an indisputably requires a prominent place in the dialogue on Islam and modernity. Equally important, is the context of the writers and philosophers currently attempting to understand Islam and justify its principles and practices with modernity. Islam is dynamic and, considering its current manifestations, must include both the setting of revelation and the setting of each subsequent evaluation.

The context of revelation exposes the distinction between verses revealed in Mecca and those revealed in Medina and raises the question of whether those revealed early are abrogated by subsequent verses. It calls into question the importance of cultural norms in both the revelations themselves and their interpretation by the early Umma. Because the Umma was exposed to different circumstances in Mecca and Medina, scholars disagree on which verses remain relevant to modernity. One argument is that the verses revealed first in Mecca represent a pure form of God’s message,and the subsequent Medinan revelations represent a “descent from ultimate Islam” to a level the Umma was able to comprehend at that stage. This implies that when considering Islam and modernity, one should glean principles from the early revelations and apply them using more advanced modern thought. A contrasting opinion is that of naskh, or abrogation, that “some verses of the Qur’an were interpreted as supplanting some other earlier versions dealing with the same subject.” This concept weighs heavily on the discussion on such controversial topics as jihad. The presence of cultural norms greatly influences discussions on Islam and human rights, including slavery and the role of women. Regarding slavery, scholars argue that “given the entrenched position of slavery throughout the world at the time, Islam had no choice but to recognize the institution … and do its best to improve the conditions.” The consideration of context reflects the reality that religion, ideology, and other foundations for society emerge and slowly mature over time, incorporating temporal aspects along with transcendent principles.

As Islam entered the age of modernity, many philosophers issued a series of “apologies” to the west for discrepancies between renaissance concepts of humanism and traditional Islamic practices and beliefs. These apologies were addressed comprehensively by Ambassador Mehmet Pacaci, whose evaluation portrayed these apologies as both divisive among Muslim scholars seeking to crystallize Islam’s role in a rapidly changing world and contributing to the humiliation, shame, and disgrace experienced by the Muslim community facing western “civilization.” Additionally, Pacaci’s discussion of the use and reception of “apologies” highlighted the major difference between tajdid and islah; Should the Qur’an be used to explain modernity or should modernity be used to explain the Qur’an? The balance of this contentious relationship depends on the context of the scholar considering it.

Modern Islamic thought was forged within the fire of radically novel, revolutionary changes, ideologies, and events. Thus, Islamic modernity must be acknowledged at least partially as a response to the formation of nation-states, the western conception of democracy as legitimizing government, and the rise and fall of socialism and communism as polarizing ideologies. In current scholarship present circumstances rarely appear as transitory and influential as past circumstances were to their predecessors. The development of a religious ideology is a dynamic process of maturation, not a series of static jumps to be observed in the context of “then and now”. Considerations of Islam and modernity inadvertently fall into the trap of considering the past versus the present rather than identifying both contexts as points along a spectrum that will continue into the unseen future.

The independence of India from Great Britain and subsequent transformation into a modern nation-state exposed and exacerbated tensions between Hindus and Muslims that would eventually lead to the partition and formation of Pakistan. India was defined by arguably arbitrary geographic boundaries and characterized by the imposition of western definitions of religion and society via censuses and subsequent labeling. Not only was the concept of a secular state novel, it created a situation “in which Muslims [were] citizens in a Secular state”, where they were “neither the sole rulers nor merely ruled.” This situation had never before been considered or addressed by Muslim political thought. In his evaluation of Islam and representative democracy, Kabir responds to the dilemma of whether or not to consider Hindus as kafirs, or people of the book in the context of the history of India and his current circumstances. He reaches the conclusion that political parties in a democracy should not be based on religion, caste, or a group based on birth, as it introduces rigidity into a system designed to promote the well-being of all members, whether in the majority or minority. Kafir’s argument in favor of strengthening the whole of India through diversity and representation acknowledges the novelty of nation-states, yet does not question either their arbitrary nature or the authority of the government derived from the decision of the people through democracy. This omission results from Kafir’s own personal time and place, a world before the stark polarization between communism and capitalism.

Contrastingly, Mohamed Arkoun’s attempt “to reshape Islamic interpretation” took place during the rise of socialist ideology and conceptualization of the modern world. Arkoun somewhat high-handedly describes contexts as the religious and social imaginaires that arise as products of societies’ various settings. Arkoun differentiates between specific context-influenced institutions and “the permanent issues in human life” that arise to address to very sophisticatedly deconstruct timeless precepts from temporal confusion. Understandably, Arkoun fails to fully deconstruct his own imaginaire. Although his essay is wrought with socialist diction, nowhere is this more apparent than his proclamation that “economic life and thought had been submitted to ethical-religious principles until the triumph of the capitalist system of production and exchange, which replaced the symbolic exchanges practiced in traditional societies with the rule of profit.” Although not explicitly referencing the Cold War struggle between ideological systems, his writing bears clear influence and thus must be subject to his own deconstruction process of substance from imaginaire.

After the implosion of the Soviet Union and the subsequent withering of the communist ideology from mainstream conceptions of governance, US-style democracy emerged supreme on the world stage. Sadek J. Sulaiman examines Islam in light of democracy by drawing parallels between democracy and Shura, yet his evaluation betrays a strong influence of his context. Sulaiman defines democracy as “public participation in decisions affecting public life,” with the principle of equality at its core, yet fails to touch on other systems that could possibly satisfy this broad definition. He states that the elements of a democratic system are “particularly well articulated in the American constitutional system” whose characteristics are “a great and unique experience in the formation and evolution of nations.” While the American constitutional system is unquestionably a bastion of democracy and intellectual freedom, it could be argued that the principle of equality, if defined materially or based on opportunity, is not at its core. Although Sulaiman is quick to point out the “cultural specifics rooted in the history” of Islam, he fails to view himself as possibly influenced by a different set of “cultural specifics.” Ironically, The Economist’s consideration of Islam’s place in time provides possibly the most striking example of the influence of context on ideas. Pre-9/11, western writers were able to entertain such ideas as “foolish and dangerous things” done in the name of Islam are the result of “international defeat and humiliation,” or that “most Islamic radicals seem on the admittedly limited evidence available to outsiders to be considerably less rigid in their attitudes than Lenin’s Communists ever were.” In today’s context, no mainstream western newspaper would dare address such concepts so light-handedly, without first providing some form of acknowledgement or disclaimer of the events of September 11th in the United States, July 7th in London, or the Atocha train station in Madrid. Additionally, one would be hard-pressed to find a journalist who would refer to Islamist Radicals as less dangerous to the west than Lenin’s Communists. The world has changed once again and begs us, the scholars, not to ignore or discount the change but to be constantly cognizant of it. Ideologies and religions are not static. They are constantly maturing and changing as a result of philosophical examination and changing circumstances. The challenge is to accept that the specifics of setting will always be present and to acknowledge their effects on past and current thought.