The Shifting Politics of Identity 267a new dimension to the meaning of Islam. According to Khan, the essence of
Islam was compatible with nature and natural laws. The proof of a religion
ought to be based on its ‘correspondence with the natural disposition of man,
or with nature’ ( fi trat-i insani ya nechar ke mutabiq) (ibid.: 316). For Khan, the word
and work of God, which were considered then in the nineteenth century to be
scripture and nature respectively, could not be in confl ict with each other: ‘it
would be highly irrational to maintain that God’s work ( fi l) and God’s word
(qawl ) are different and unrelated to one another’ (ibid.: 317).
Khan’s formulation of Islam as nature had direct implications for modern
Muslim identity. It held a fundamental critique of the existing traditions of
Islam. This critique included the theological foundations of Islamic belief that
stretched over a thousand years. With this critique Islam was established on a
new foundation that made it indistinguishable from nature. The naturalism of
Khan was a form of universalism that he claimed for Islam. This was intended
not only to prove the superiority of Islam, but to posit the equivalence between
Islam and a universal order. There was a direct political relevance for this trans-
formation. The new universalism was promoted and embodied by the political
order that the British colonial regime brought to India. In this sense, Khan’s
project declared that Islam was compatible with the science and civilisation
that colonialism brought. Khan and his followers did not argue for a universal
Islamic political regime against the British Raj. His was a declaration that bound
Islam to the criteria and judgement of universal nature. The Muslims addressed
by Khan could feel that Islam was part of a universal vision corresponding to
nature and harmony.
But if such was the universal aspect of nineteenth-century Muslim identity,
there was another element in his politics. Khan clearly championed the interests
of elite Muslims in this new political order, from which he believed they had
not yet benefi ted. He criticised Muslims for failing to take advantage of the new
schooling opportunities, and for resting on the laurels of their former glory. But,
more importantly, he never tired of reminding the British of their responsibili-
ties. He believed that it was the responsibility of the new rulers to respond to
the needs of the different religious groups. In a book written specifi cally for the
British colonial regime after the 1857 revolt, Khan (2000: 46) characterised the
art of politics in the following manner:
The only real kingdom is that of the Almighty who created the world. He
however, made the kings of this world as a type of what he Himself is in his order
that man on seeing his sovereign, should recollect that there is the still greater
one than him. For this reason many wise and able men have laid down the good
qualities of the Almighty, such as bounty, kindness, etc., should also be found
represented in earthly Kings, hence the title ‘Shadow of God’. It is therefore,
incumbent on earthly kings to treat their subjects with that bountiful liberality
with which the Almighty has treated the whole world.