Islamic movements has been an interesting topic to me for quite a few years now. I’ve attempted to read some history books on my own about modern Islamic movements for the purpose of seeking directions for my involvement with Islamic movements today. However, it is hard to go through thick and dry texts and attempt to grasp and discern the principles that underlay these Islamic movements. So the presentation from Dr Hisham Altalib is enlightening in achieving this.
Personally, my experience working in the da’wa scene amongst the Malays, there is the tendency to idolize a particular jemaah, or a particular scholar from one jemaah. With the benefit of hindsight and available studies on various Islamic movements, particularly the movements of the twentieth century, this helps me to see claims made by these people in a new light. I can always refer to these principles and from there, point out the contexts in which those ideas emerge. This helps me to map out the viewpoints of scholars and their jemaah in their own context and, if still relevent, re-examine how that applies to the situation today. It also builds tolerance for differing opinions as I can understand where their point of view and the value of truth it has.
In summary, we begin to tackle this topic by looking at the objective of mankind which is to know each other (al-Hujurat: 13) and work towards peace and unity. Originally, Islamic movements emerged in the Umayyad when there was a rift between rulers and scholars because the leadership’s hereditary nature breeds incompetence and nepotism. One can easily be obsessed or dislike a particular movement just by reading or hearing a sympathetic/antagonistic story about them. Taqleed and dislike are two extreme attitudes in viewing an Islamic movement; we should develop a methodology to examine historical accounts of Islamic movements in an objective manner and come up with solutions to forming better Islamic movements to serve present circumstances.
One important idea in this regard is environmental context and the founder’s personality that shape its response. For example, a movement’s ideologue normally harps on liberation theology and prescribe militant resistance in a situation of colonization. Its success in anti-colonial resistance may not necessarily imply success in post-colonization if its method is imitated. To follow this mentality today may lead to one’s overlooking the intricacies of culture and its role in building civilizations. Afterall, it is easy to break but hard to build.
As a side note however, it is also crucial to not merely leave ideas behind in its context and then dismiss it on the justification that it is obsolete. Each movement has its own focus, we look at all of them and benefit from it all. Quoting Dr Mahmoud Ayoub, “I am a traditionalist. I believe it is easier to build upon what is already available rather than to start anew.”
In the context of America, for example, similar perhaps to medieval Baghdad, the materialistic society brought about a sufi-oriented movement like the Qadiriyyah of Abdul Qadir Jilani. Similarly, sufi poetry from the likes of Rumi and Hafez are well-received in materialistic America today among the afluent. One can look at it in two ways. Firstly, prescriptively speaking, for every challenge there must be an appropriate response. Secondly, and descriptively speaking, actions bring about reactions. Communism may not necessarily have been the best response, it was simply a “mechanical” reaction elicited by poverty.
There are various lessons to learn from past Islamic movements. Blind immitation will not lead to succes, be it immitation of the West or immitation of Islam’s glorious past. We should follow a faqih’s hujjah, not the faqih himself. It is unfortunate that innovation is looked down upon as bid’ah dalalah, where in fact progress can only come through positive innovative thinking (bid’ah hasanah).
In recent times, because popular Islamic groups today emerged in the context of anti-colonialism, there is the denial of agency mentality. Issues concerning the ummah today are conveniently reduced to blaming on outsiders. Whether it is true or not, it does not help to be in this constant denial of agency. Malik Bennabi says, when one is sick, the whole body is sick. It cannot think properly, somebody else has to think for it. If not, it leads to a symptomatic appraoch rather than cause-effect.
What built the great Islamic civilization of the past is the waqf system. it wasn’t the state. Colonialism sabotaged the waqf and put it under the government’s control, leading to corruption. Another factor is the madrasah system, which likewise, was overtaken by secular schools. Islam is then no longer taught. Islamic movements attempted to fill this gap but it was too little too late, lacking in its modern technology and resources. So this becomes an issue.
Bear in mind, a movement in the opposition is isolated from participation. Their actions become empty theoretical slogans that lack experience, no viable alternatives, unable to solve peoples problems, and end up becoming marginalized. In essence, the notion that Islam is good for all times implies tajdeed (renewal), islah (reform), tahdeeth (modernization), morouna (flexibility), ibda’ (creativity). Before I finish, as a final thought, what other principles can we pick up from the general academic studies done on non-Islamic social movements? Perhaps there are lessons to be learned here too?
]