Is 'Political' Islam Different to 'Traditional' Islam?

Battle for ‘Hearts and Minds’
http://www.hizb. org.uk/hizb/ resources/ issues-explained /is-political- islam-different- to-traditional- islam.html
We are told there is a battle of ideas taking place within ‘British Islam’. On the one side, ‘traditional Islam’ – “calm voices of moderation and reason”, on the other – “The voices of extremism [un]representative of Islam”. The last battle cries of a beleaguered Prime Minister attempting to once again set out the parameters for yet another ‘debate’ within the Muslim community. Debate in Blair-speak means fraternising with people that agree with the ‘government narrative’. Dialogue has never been a strong point for this government, and in its absence we were presented with yet more simplifications of a more complex issue.

Context is key

After September 11 and 7/7, the government, politicians, media and academics all began to look at the main drivers of ‘Islamic’ terrorism. The government claimed there is a deep ‘extremist’ strain of thinking within the Muslim community that desires the wholesale destruction of the West, whatever the policies it employs. On the other side, people started to question the contribution British support for the ‘War on Terror’ has played in fomenting radicalisation within the Muslim community. It was inevitable the government would downplay the invasion of Iraq, despite the fact that Blair’s colleagues broke ranks and accepted its impact.
In order to deflect attention, Tony Blair employed a series of speeches and conferences to call upon the Muslim community to weed out the ‘extremists’ from the Muslim community. By doing this he had already forced a conclusion in the public domain that the problem was rooted in the Muslim community that required an internal fight. Subsequent events must be viewed in this light. The formation of alternative organisations to ‘represent’ Muslims (rubberstamp government policies), encouragement to individuals and organisations to question established Islamic institutions and values are all designed to silence the Muslim community. We are told today that ‘Islamism’ is a politicised version of traditional Islam, and as such political Islam is a made-up, twentieth-century innovation with no basis within traditional beliefs. This claim needs to be explored.

A modern idea or an abandoned obligation revived?
One underlying discussion that needs to be investigated is the oft repeated claim that ‘traditional’ Islam is silent, inward looking and accepts the seperation between Islam and Politics but above everything else it is authentic. Dr Ali Gomaa’s (Grand Mufti of Egypt) questioning of the ‘caliphate’ (Khilafah) model by saying that there are alternative models of Islamic governance must be seen within this light. Whilst at the polar opposite end of the spectrum sits political Islam, it is absorbed with power, has a propensity to be violent, and above all it is reactive, sitting on the fringe of Islam. We are told ad-nausea that the Khilafah is a modern concept rooted in a reaction to colonialism following the destruction of the Uthmaniyyah Khilafah (Ottoman Caliphate). Successive catastrophes did indeed focus the minds of the Muslim masses, but this is far removed from saying the Khilafah is a modern idea, devoid of Islamic credentials. The Islamic texts counter this claim and the classical scholars are in agreement to its obligation.

Polar opposites or two sides of the same coin?
Recognising Islam is holistic is an acknowledgment that Allah (subhanhu wa ta’aala) perfected His Deen. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala) sent His beloved Rasool (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) to: “perfect the morals and conduct of mankind." He also revealed a comprehensive system of laws regulating individual and societal conduct. Although one command cannot be elevated above another, the scholars’ description of the khilafah as the ‘mother of all obligations’ (ummul faraa’id) places additional emphasis on this institution. This is because so many ahkam are abandoned by its absence.
At this stage it is important to clarify that the call for the re-establishment of the khilafah does not mean the abandonment of the rest of Islam. It does not mean as Muslims we must de-emphasise the importance of strengthening our nafsiyyah. Developing the nafsiyyah, that is to develop the Muslims closeness to Allah through recommended and actions solely to enhance once relationship with Allah, is part of all Muslims duty. Those who work to establish the Khilafah must also take on the serious task of self-development, spiritual enhancing and work to rid themselves of qualities and traits which corrode the heart. It must also be noted here that developing the nafsiyyah also involves obedience (ta’at) to Allah by following his commandments, one of which is the implementation of the Shari’ah.

Approaching Islam from a partial perspective must be abandoned in favour of embracing the classical holistic model that Rasool (salAllahu alaihi wasallam), the Sahabah after him, the tabi’een after them and tabi’ tabi’een latterly enacted.

The resultant conclusion leads us to unrelenting adherence to the shariah whilst acknowledging Islam must not be solely viewed as a collection of dos and don’ts. An action must be approached by reference to the ahkam of Allah, whilst enacting worship must carry the mindset of an ‘Abid (slave - of Allah). Prominent scholars such as Imam Ghazzali (ra) have clarified the difference between the inward and the outward aspects of worship (see Ihya Ulum al-Deen – Inner dimensions of Islamic worship).

Returning back to an earlier point, living by Islam refers to all aspects of our relationships, all must be in line with Islam. Therefore downplaying the importance of the Khilafah/Islamic State/Imamah in order to emphasise personal rectification is akin to missing salah (prayer) in order to conserve energy for siyam (fasting)
Historic Examples of Famous Sufis
The claim that Sufis are disengaged from everything besides personal rectification is both insulting and erroneous. Adopting the path of Tasawwuf does not abrogate the Shari’ requirements to enjoin the good & forbid the evil, partake in Da’wah or enact Jihad when the conditions require it. There is a notable history that is often forgotten. A few appropriate examples dispel any notion that Sufism is somehow passive and introspective.

Imam Shamil was a Naqshbandi Sufi who lived in nineteenth century Northern Caucuses. He is also noted as a great mujahid who fought against Russian occupation in current day Dagestan.

Abd al-Qadir al-Jazairi was in the Qadiri Sufi order yet he led numerous attacks against the French occupation of nineteenth century Algeria.

Ma Hualong, a leader of Jahriyya order, an order of the Naqshbandi sufis fought as leader of the Muslim struggle in the Gansu Province in modern China.

Shaykh Ahmad al-Farooqi Sirhindi was a prominent member of the Naqshbandi Sufi order and is widely acknowledged as being Mujaddid of his time (Majaddid Alf Thani). He countered the Din-e-ilahi (Divine Faith) of Akbar and helped bring back Islamic rule to seventeenth century India.

Sheikh Taqi ad-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah was a member of the Qadiri order of Sufis. Although he is famous for attacking certain Sufi groups for their excesses, he nonetheless recognised the importance of rectifying the heart, de-emphasising the importance of this worldly life and total dedication to Allah. In particular he attacked the antinomian interpretation of Sufism which led some orders to believe they were absolved from living by the ahkam of Allah, such as the Rifa’i order. He is noted for leading the opposition against the Mongol invasion of 1300.

At this critical juncture, we need to take a sober look at how we view Islam. There has always been a long tradition of discussion, debate and difference between scholars and the wider ummah on the finer points of Islam. It was always assumed that difference is only acceptable within the remits clearly set out in Islam. This means a fundamental acceptance of amongst other things, salah (prayer), zakah (alms), hajj (pilgrimage) , siyam (fasting), aqaa’id (basic doctrine), personal rectification and living by Islam including the need for a unitary state founded on an Islamic basis. By disavowing the latter, we run the risk of destroying fundamental parts of Islam as the vehicle that realises there existence is the khilafah.

For further information about the obligation of Khilafah and what the distinguished scholars of early Islam said about it click here
Bibilography
The Ruling System in Islam, Hizb ut-Tahrir
The Inner Dimensions of Islamic Worship, Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazzali
Al-Maqasid, Imam Nawawi, translation and notes by Nuh Ha Mim Keller
Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya, Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawa