Introduction
Islamism, as one of the most significant intellectual and political movements of the twentieth century and the beginning of the third millennium, has played a prominent role in transforming Islamic societies. Despite its diversity, this movement converges on several fundamental principles: the failure of modernity to fulfill its Enlightenment-era promises of salvation and prosperity; the incompatibility of modern values with Islamic ethical and moral foundations; and the necessity of reviving Islamic teachings to address the challenges of underdevelopment and Westoxification. This research employs Quentin Skinner's hermeneutical approach to examine the relationship between two influential thinkers—Ahmad Fardid and Sayyid Qutb—and their respective historical-social contexts in Iran and Egypt. Fardid's concept of "Westoxification" (Gharbzadegi) and Qutb's "modern jahiliyyah" represent fundamental critiques of Western modernity, emerging from their anti-modern intellectual turns. While developed in different social contexts, both concepts converged in their critique of modernity and redefinition of Islamic identity. The study aims to analyze these concepts as anti-modern turns in Islamic thought, revealing how historical and social conditions in Iran and Egypt shaped their development while uncovering the underlying ideological and philosophical frameworks that emphasize East-West dualism and resistance to Western hegemony.
Materials and Methods
Skinner's hermeneutical methodology, grounded in developments in philosophy of language and hermeneutics, provides an analytical framework for studying political thought within its historical-linguistic context. Drawing inspiration from speech act theory, particularly Austin (1962) and Grice (1989), Skinner's approach emphasizes three fundamental components:
1. Understanding texts within their contemporary linguistic and discursive context: Skinner emphasizes that concepts can only be properly understood within their period's discursive framework and linguistic conventions, asserting that "no text can be understood without reference to its historical context" (Skinner, 1969: 3-53). 2. Reconstructing authorial intention: Rather than focusing solely on apparent textual meanings, Skinner emphasizes the author's intention as a social actor. He maintains that "texts embody specific intentions in response to particular contemporary problems and challenges" (Skinner, 1969: 67). 3. Analyzing texts as socio-political actions: Texts are viewed as communicative acts within their contemporary political discourse, aiming to create, reinforce, or transform existing paradigms (Skinner, 1996: 178).
This methodology is particularly suitable for comparative analysis of Fardid's "Westoxification" and Qutb's "modern jahiliyyah," examining them not as abstract concepts but as intellectual responses to modernity's challenges in Iran and Egypt. The analysis focuses on:
1. Historical-social context analysis 2. Reconstruction of authorial intentions 3. Examination of discursive practices and linguistic conventions. The approach enables understanding how these concepts emerged as ideological tools for reconstructing Islamic identity and resisting Western hegemony.
Discussion and Result
In the twentieth century, the ideologization of Islamic tradition emerged as a response to Western secularization and political suppression by secular states. Qutb and Fardid critiqued modernity and Western influences through concepts like "modern jahiliyyah" and "Westoxification." Both rejected modernity due to its incompatibility with Islam in political and philosophical dimensions. Fardid described the past, present, and future world as Westoxified due to God's absence. He viewed Westoxification as worse than genocide, arguing that with Greek philosophy's emergence in Western history, the sun of truth set and the East became veiled by the West. Fardid, aligned with Heidegger, considered modern reason as illusion and criticized the partial reason governing Western civilization as self-foundational nihilism. Similarly, Qutb stated that Islamic states must avoid non-Islamic teachings where Sharia isn't fundamental. He divided the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb based on the distinction between Islam and jahiliyyah/non-Islam. Like Fardid, he rejected all Western political systems including democracy, viewing them as human-made constructs conflicting with Islam.
Both thinkers criticized secularism for weakening Islamic societies' social cohesion. Fardid argued that secularism, like Western democracy, was incompatible with the Islamic concept of "ummah." Qutb rejected the separation of religion and state prevalent in Western civilization, considering it the first civilization to create a divide between belief and practice. Despite methodological differences, they shared key criticisms of modernity: both opposed humanism and secularism, viewed the West holistically as a threat to Islamic values, and emphasized returning to spiritual and religious authenticity. While Fardid's critique was primarily philosophical and cultural, focusing on spiritual transformation, Qutb emphasized socio-political changes and establishing Islamic governance.
Conclusion
A comparative study of Fardid and Sayyid Qutb's thoughts within the framework of intentionalist hermeneutics reveals significant convergence in their anti-modern turn, despite their different intellectual and cultural backgrounds. This convergence manifests in their shared commitment to preserving Islamic authenticity and unity against Western dominance. Fardid's conceptualization of "Westoxification" and Qutb's "modern jahiliyyah" both represent critical reactions to the uncritical acceptance of Western modernity, though they arrived at this critique through different epistemological paths. Their direct experience with the West through travel and study played a decisive role in shaping their critical approach to modernity. This lived experience, combined with observing Western intervention's consequences in Islamic societies, gradually shifted them from their initially sympathetic stance toward modernity to a radical critique. Both thinkers emphasized Islam's comprehensiveness but with distinct approaches: Fardid, with a philosophical-metaphysical view, saw Islam as a solution to modernity-induced alienation, emphasizing human wisdom, while Qutb, with a Sharia-centered approach, analyzed issues at the socio-political system level. This difference in approach, rooted in Iran and Egypt's different intellectual-cultural contexts, demonstrates the diversity of intellectual responses to modernity in the Islamic world.