I seem to have hurried to publish the previous two instalments of this series without an introduction explaining their aims and importance. Let this instalment serve as a belated introduction; some delay may prove beneficial, God willing.
The beginnings of the new interpretation of Islam appeared in the call of the Iranian Muhammad ibn Safdar al-Asadabadi, known as Jamal al-Din al-Afghani. Shaykh Hasan al-Banna renewed his call in another form, while al-Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb followed the same path. Thus arose what is called Islamic or movement-oriented thought, the Islamic movement, the Islamic current, the awakening, or Islamic groups: different names for one religious, preaching and intellectual reality and direction.
The errors and dangers of movement-oriented thought fall into two broad matters:
First: Detailed errors, deviations and misguided positions in creed, practice and conduct.
Sunni scholars addressed these through explanation, advice, warning, response and refutation, discharging their duty most fully.
Second: The new creed or thought, or, if you wish, religion, founded upon the principles and theories of movement-oriented thought, through its view of religion’s purpose, legislation’s aim and the nature of the worship God has imposed upon us. It claims that God created us to develop the earth and establish the state and virtuous society, and that all prescribed acts of worship, such as prayer, zakat, fasting and Hajj, are training instruments to accomplish the purpose for which He created us, rather than intended in themselves.
Throughout their different ages and across their various sects, apart from extreme and esotericist sects, Muslims agreed that religion’s purpose is fulfilling servitude to God, the One and Only, and working for the hereafter. Prayer, zakat, fasting, Hajj, reciting the Qur’an, remembrance, supplication and other acts of worship seek humility and devotion to God. They are noble ends and aims, rather than merely means and causes directed towards something else. Everything Islamic law brings concerning reform of individuals and society and development of the earth belongs to the duties, complements, fruits and outcomes of establishing servitude to God. These are not intended for themselves. Although their legitimate forms belong to religion, they are not religion’s core, ultimate ends and lofty objectives.
This second matter represents the true nature of movement-oriented thought. Its effect on everyone who holds or is influenced by it is profound and dangerous, although most do not conceive it in this detail or believe it with this clarity. Its influence appears in their manner of thinking, view of worship and dominant concerns and intentions, regardless of their movement affiliation. The takfiri, Qutbist, Sururi, follower of al-Banna, liberal, parliamentarian and Hizb al-Tahrir adherent all proceed from this theory.
None of the scholars and students who struggled commendably against movement-oriented thought in the first matter addressed its foundation and new interpretation of religion. There are understandable reasons:
First: The new interpretation is connected with philosophy and Western thought, in which those worthy scholars have little interest.
Second: The theory is obscure, and movement activists introduce it gradually in acceptable religious forms, such as the importance of legislation and governing by what God has revealed.
Thus, within the limits of my reading, I know only two people who succeeded in exposing this new interpretation by explaining its foundations, aims and danger to Islamic creed and law:
The first: The great Indian philosopher and thinker Wahiduddin Khan, described here as born in 1925 and still alive, delivering live lectures online. He was the first to notice this grave deviation. He belonged to Jamaat-e-Islami but was compelled to leave it, moving to Nadwat al-Ulama, where Abu al-Hasan al-Nadwi was. He soon withdrew, disturbed by Nadwah’s Sufi and scholastic traditions. He wrote several books criticising the new interpretation of religion, but they received little attention or circulation, perhaps because he lacked wide fame and, unlike al-Nadwi, was not known for scholarship, religious teaching, virtue and influence.
The second: Shaykh Abu al-Hasan Ali al-Hasani al-Nadwi. It seems to me that he benefited from Wahiduddin Khan in this. His sense of the new tendency’s danger increased after observing its harmful effect on the worship and conduct of Jamaat-e-Islami’s followers. He considered warning against it a religious duty and explained it in his 1977 lecture mentioned in the second instalment. He then devoted a book to it: The Political Interpretation of Islam in the Mirror of the Writings of Abu al-A‘la al-Mawdudi and the Martyr Sayyid Qutb. He issued it in Urdu in December 1979, prepared it in Arabic in October, and it appeared in the same year from Dar Afaq al-Ghad in Egypt. In its introduction he said:
“It was truly a surprise to the author to receive angry letters expressing deep displeasure and sharp criticism from several members of the Jamaat in India following publication of the Urdu edition. He had expected them to be more broad-minded and tolerant than extremists belonging to other groups, and to distinguish malicious personal disagreement from principled, purposeful difference.”
The Arabic edition met similar displeasure and sharp criticism. It was isolated and suppressed. Today one finds all al-Nadwi’s books in fine new editions across East and West, except this one, effectively lost were it not for a scanned copy circulated online about two years ago, apparently taken from the Library of Alexandria.
About twenty years ago I encountered the title in an al-Nadwi footnote in another book and began searching for it. I obtained it only in 2002, when I photocopied a copy from the Islamic Encyclopaedia library in Istanbul. During those long years I asked dozens of prominent scholars, students and university professors in several Arab countries, but found no one who knew it. Last year, during my visit to Riyadh to participate in the Prophet of Mercy conference, the scholar Abu Abd al-Rahman Ibn Aqil al-Zahiri hosted me in his home, may God preserve him and reward his generosity, good manners and humility. I mentioned al-Nadwi’s book; he did not know it. I then explained the nature of the movement-oriented interpretation of religion. He was greatly surprised and requested a copy. Yet Abu Abd al-Rahman is among the most widely read and cultivated scholars of our age, avid in pursuing books and studying ideas and philosophies.
I also asked one of our age’s most prominent religious teachers, who spent much of his life teaching, knew many scholars, preachers and intellectuals of different tendencies, visited many countries including India, met Abu al-Hasan al-Nadwi and criticised his Sufi positions: Shaykh Sa‘d ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Husayn, may God preserve him. He said: “I have come across its title in some books discussing Hasan al-Banna’s Sufism.” I explained its importance, and he too was surprised, saying: “But al-Nadwi is a Sufi who calls Ibn Arabi the Greatest Shaykh.”
Yes, al-Nadwi is a Sufi. But he is a religious Sufi who reveres God’s religion and law, a distinguished scholar and accomplished thinker, comparable to prominent figures of Sufism, thought and literature in Islamic history such as Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, though sounder in religion and straighter in method than al-Ghazali. For criticism of al-Nadwi’s Sufi positions, I referred readers to the Indian researcher Salah Maqbul’s book, thereby being fair and offering sincere advice.
My aim in these articles is neither unqualified praise for al-Nadwi nor promotion of his errors, as some worthy brothers imagined and criticised me for. Some went too far in attacking him, using descriptions not used by scholars who criticised him with knowledge, justice and fairness. Others thought I was trying to establish that al-Nadwi was a Salafi scholar. Neither was my purpose. It was to highlight his distinction in exposing the reality and danger of movement-oriented thought. He wrote a book that truly refutes that thought and demolishes its foundations. This angered movement activists and disturbed their sleep, so they sought to isolate and suppress it. Al-Nadwi, whose Sufi temperament inclined to calm and peacefulness, contented himself with issuing it in about five editions. He had discharged his duty of advice and cleared his responsibility before God.
Our duty now is to renew publication of his book, draw attention to its importance and acknowledge his precedence and merit, asking the Almighty to forgive him, pardon him and encompass him in His vast mercy. Praise belongs to Him, first and last.
Written for you by:
Abd al-Haqq al-Turkmani
Britain: 13/9/1432 AH