One thing that the Jordan Initiative
exposed is the existence of groups within the fold of Islam. Two facts bear
repeating- one, that Muslims, especially today’s Muslims, are not a monolithic
bloc; two, that Muslim reform movements have taken on the tendencies of
messianic cults. These movements share with their Christian counterparts an
intolerance for those factions most similar to them than those who more starkly
disagree with them.
Hardly surprising since we have historical examples. The Bolsheviks hated the
Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution far more than the czar. The Communists
hated the Trotskyites far more than capitalists. The Nazis hated the Communists
far more than the French.
Thus, we find in
Musab al-Zarqawi’s letter to Usama bin Laden the first hints of the ideology that drives militant groups. Almost three-quarters of the letter
attack Muslims themselves. He either considers them plain enemies or at the very least, misguided. Of the shaykhs and ulema (religious authorities) who lead the Ummah (Muslim community), he describes as being mostly “Sufis doomed to perdition“.
Since Musab al-Zarqawi is not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination, his ideas are neither original nor unique in the ideological framework he claims to operate in, which is Salafism.
But he brings up a valid point. The claim that shaykhs and ulema are Sufis might sound strange at first, but it clarifies the
point that ilm-al-Tassawwuf (the science of Sufism) has always held an integral position in traditional Islam.
Certainly, what is meant by traditional Islam today is the implementation that
emanates from the Koran and the Sunnah, as interpreted by the four major
Madhhabs (Schools of Thought). Normative Islam, in other words.
Unfortunately, what today’s Muslims lack is Musab al-Zarqawi’s blunt honesty.
They blithely accept the charge that Sufism, for example, is pantheistic,
corrupting and a fringe cult. Thus informed, they flee far away when they hear terms as
Tassawwuf or Kalam (Islamic theology). The argument goes that since these disciplines arrived later
on the historical stage- generations after the what Salafists like to call the time of al-salaf al-salihin (Pious Predecessors)- they should be regarded as
negative accretions.
This is unnecessarily dense. All religionists depend on their cultural and
social background to interpret religion. Other more methodical tools like
philosophy, logic and even textual criticism are utilized when a sufficient
level of understanding has been reached. It is social evolution at play. Because
religion is essentially interpretative, the human relationship with divine
scripture is hardly frozen, regardless of Salafist claims that traditional Islam is
fossilized Islam.
The whole purpose of the Madhhabs- a key ingredient of traditional Islam- is to streamline the interpretative. Because subjectivity is an invariable fact standing between man and divine text, a certain ‘norm’ must be established, and
the Madhhab culture provides a tool to address this. That tool is called taqleed
(adherence) and it is a covenant that was formulated not for the purposes of
oppressing thought, but protecting orthodoxy.
Yet isn’t the Golden Age of Islam, the supposed Time of the Pious Predecessors, a far better criterion to go by?
Neo-Salafism champions the idea of receiving religion from a direct access to
the Koran and Hadiths. More specifically, the emphasis should be on how the
Salaf had interpreted and implemented Islam, and less on how classical ulema had
done so down the ages. It is from this platform that neo-Salafists rail against
Tassawwuf, Kalam, Ashari’ism etc, which did not exist in any coherent sense
during the time of the Prophet.
The line of reasoning is tempting but intellectually dishonest. No matter what criterion is used, religion remains interpretative.
Muslims don’t see God, yet they are told that He exists. The Koran enjoins believers to
strengthen belief through inward contemplation of things as simple as natural phenomenon.
Significantly, these are referred to as ayats (signs).
The only means we have of studying the Time of the Pious Predecessors is through writings and customs passed down generations of upright persons or groups. The striking thing is that Salafists do not, in actuality,
possess a special manuscript or a more direct access to sacred history than say, the scholars of traditional Islam.
What they do bring is an insight, a filter that is made up of preconceived
notions. Ultimately, their insights are as subjective as the next one.
The Time of the Pious Predecessors was an objective reality to those who had
literally witnessed and partook from it, immersed in the cultural and linguistic
norms of that time. Contemporary groups that claim descent from it are merely
constructing a subjective framework. There is no real significance to attaching
the word ‘Salafi’ to a movement or an idea. The illusion and subjectivity of
such claims is evident from the sheer number of movements that wear the same
mantle, but
differ so dramatically (and violently) from each other.
Salafism- and by this I refer to almost all the reformist movements that eschew
the necessity of Schools of Thoughts, militant or otherwise- is neither
normative nor orthodox. In many ways, it posits a system that directly revolts
against traditional values, though it claims respect for the great Imams after
whom the Madhhabs are named.
Such paradoxes are endemic to the discourse. Some apologists claim, for example, that extreme Salafism is just as dangerous as extreme
Madhhabism, but this is a ridiculous comparison. Extreme Madhhabism, which
manifests itself in a blind partiality toward a particular school to the extent
of excluding other Madhhabs, has always been an exception and remains outside
the normative practice of traditional Islam.
In contrast, exclusivity forms the very basis of Salafism. The varying
expressions of Salafism one sees is merely a result of Salafists differing on
just how subtle this aspect of Salafism should be. It must be said, however,
that extreme Salafists form only a minority of the whole movement.
The formula most repeated by non-Muslims and even Muslims is that takfeerism
(exclusivity so extreme it excommunicates other groups) is the result of
interpreting Islam in an extremist fashion. While non-Muslim commentators might
be forgiven for their superficial treatment of Islam, the Muslims who defend
this point make for an interesting case-study. These are Muslims who shroud
ideology with the cloak of religion, because in reality, takfeerism is not extreme Islam, but extreme Salafism. Takfeerism is the logical and inevitable conclusion of the particular worldview enjoined by exclusivity.
The distinction must be made since Salafism is neither orthodox nor
representative of Islam. One is a faith providing spiritual
succor to billions of peace-loving individuals; the other is an ideology that
continues to motivate bloodthirsty terrorists.
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
Takfeerism is not extreme Islam, but extreme Salafism—From your post. That is so catchy.