Lecture 9

IX. REVIVALISM AND REFORM
The period I am going to focus on now is the period of revivalism and reform that began in the period of Western colonization and continues into our own time.

Islam possesses a strong tradition of revival and reform. The concepts of Tajdid (renewal) and islah (reform) are fundamental concepts within Islam, based on the Qur'an and sunna of the Prophet.  The preaching of Islam itself is presented in the Qur'an as, first of all, the revival of the true religion of God and reform of corrupt practices that had crept into the practices of religion by earlier communities.  As we've discussed before, Islam regards itself as both the corroboration and the purification of the original Abrahamic faith, not a new religion but a reaffirmation of the ancient Abrahamic tradition and its renewal.  Islah (reform) itself is a Qur'anic term (occurring in chapters 7:170; 11:117, 28:19) and refers to the reformist activities of all the prophets throughout time, who were sent by God to warn their communities of their sinful ways, and calling on them to return to God's path.    

The notion of tajdid (renewal) is based on a prophetic hadith in which Muhammad states, “God will send to the umma [the Muslim community] at the beginning of each century those who will renew its faith for it.”  We know, for example, ‘Umar the second and al-Ghazali was declared to be the renewer of Islam for the 12th century.  The question remains, what are the main components of the term renewal or tajdid?  The two major components or aspects of the process of renewal are the following: 1) the process of renewal advocates, calls for, a return to the basic moral and religious principles contained in the Qur'an and sunna and secondly, 2) the right to practice ijtihad; that is to use independent reasoning in interpreting and re-interpreting the sources of Islam.  This two-pronged process of renewal therefore is based on the assumption firstly that the righteous community established and led by the Prophet Muhammad at Medina should be imitated by later Muslims, secondly, the additions and innovations (bid‘a) that have crept in over the centuries, have to be removed, and thirdly, one must examine critically the interpretation of the medieval commentators and scholars of Islam.  Therefore, those who are regarded as renewers of the faith, like our old friend al-Ghazali, claimed the right to exercise ijtihad to reinterpret Islam in order to purify and revitalize their societies.  As someone who exercised his right to reinterpret Islam and having the credentials of a well-known scholar and theologian, he was able to make Sufism a part of mainstream Islam and infuse new life into Islamic thought.  Another famous renewer whose name you should remember is Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), who interestingly, as part of his campaign to reform Islam, spoke out against some Sufi practices, such as visiting the shrines of famous mystics, the (blind) following of Sufi leaders, which he regarded as dangerous innovations within Islam and compromising its basic principles.

Before we go on to talk about specific revivalist movements, I want to emphasize that there are many faces and voices within these movements.  There is no single paradigm or pattern for them.  I also want to discuss the terms that are used in the literature today to describe these movements, both pre-modern and modern.  Scholars in the field refer to Islamic revivalism, Islamic resurgence, political Islam, and Islamism.  Another term that is used is Islamic fundamentalism.  We must remember that fundamentalism was a term coined in the 19th century to refer to particularly Protestant Christian movements which insisted on the acceptance of the Bible as the literal word of God.  In Islam, this is simply not an issue.  A Muslim by definition is someone who accepts the Qur'an as the literal word of God. whether one is a conservative or liberal Muslim, there is a consensus on this issue; one cannot be a Muslim without accepting that the Qur'an is a divine, revealed text.  From this point of view, it doesn't make sense to talk of Muslim fundamentalists as a separate group within Islam.  With this caveat, this warning in mind, it is better to speak of Islamic revivalist or reform movements, and particularly in the 20th century, to talk about modernist Islam and political Islam.

I am now going to discuss a few of these revivalist movements, starting in the eighteenth century.  The first movement of significance in the 18th century was founded by a man called Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792), from what is known as Saudi Arabia now, and after whose name this movement is called Wahhabism.  Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab was by training a jurist or a lawyer and a theologian who had also studied Sufism in the two principal cities of Mecca and Medina.  He was greatly influenced by the writings of the 13th century reformer Ibn Taymiyya, and who like Ibn Taymiyya condemned popular Sufi practices such as the visitation of tombs, and veneration of Sufi mystics, which to them smacked dangerously of idolatry and superstition.  Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, like other revivalists, therefore, maintained, that the moral decline of the Muslim community was due to deviation from the original practices of the umma.  For the community to regain its vitality and moral vigor, these practices had to be uprooted and replaced with a society that resembled the early Muslim community set up by Muhammad.  

The reformist movement of Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab acquired a political dimension when he joined forces with a local tribal chief, by the name of Muhammad ibn Saud (d. 1765).  Religious revivalism was now combined with military power to create a religio-political movement that was highly successful in achieving political power in what became renamed as Saudi Arabia.  Esposito has described the Wahhabis as similar to the Kharijites of the first century of Islam, and I think this comparison is quite appropriate.  Like the Kharijiyya, the Wahhabis subscribed to a rigid, puritanical view of Islam and considered themselves to be the correct and literal interpreters of Islamic principles.  Their understanding of ijtihad was not that ijtihad should lead to a reinterpretation of Islam but rather a return to the exact state of affairs during the time of the Prophet and his four caliphs.  No deviation was to be tolerated, and Esposito describes to us how they denounced what appeared to them as saint worship, which led them to destroy even the tombs of Muhammad and his Companions, and the tomb of Husayn, the Prophet's grandson, at Karbala.  You can imagine why the Shi‘a have a particularly dim view of the Wahhabis.  Wahhabism as a majoritarian school of thought that, however, remains restricted to Saudi Arabia; no other Muslim country has adopted on a large scale their point of view, although you find pockets of people who consider themselves Wahhabis in certain countries.  

In recent times, ‘Abd al-Wahhab has been compared to Martin Luther who ushered in the period of Reformation.  This comparison is actually quite apt; like Luther, ‘Abd al-Wahhab was a puritan and a literal scripturalist.  Both had contempt for scholarly learning and wished to rid their religions of the elaborate theological and intellectual  interpretations that had grown up over the years.  Sola scriptura: back to the scripture only!  And just as Luther’s Reformation led to some of the bloodiest and most savage religious wars in Europe, the legacy of Wahhabism, as reflected in the ideology of the Taliban in Afghanistan and al-Qa’eda, has been barbaric violence.

Now because of time constraints I am of necessity skipping over other reformist movements and simply picking out the ones that have had the most impact. MOVING ONTO THE NEXT CENTURY, the 19th, we encounter two famous names that are now forever associated with Islamic reform and modernism.  These two names are Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (d. 1897) and Muhammad ‘Abduh (d. 1905), who was a disciple of al-Afghani.  Both men stressed the importance of ijtihad as their main tool of effecting reform, and they advocated using ijtihad to arrive at new interpretations of Islam, rather than slavishly following the interpretation of the medieval scholars.

The political and historical situation of the period is important to keep in mind in understanding why reformist and modernist movements began to gain ground at this time.  The nineteenth century represented the height of European colonialism in the Middle East and other areas of the Islamic world. This was a humiliating situation for Muslims everywhere; whereas until recent times, the Islamic civilization had been the dominant one and Muslims had been the masters of their destiny, now they were reduced to subjects of alien, hostile powers who regarded their way of life with contempt.  This was therefore a period of great soul-searching and self-examination.  Muslim thinkers reflected on their fate; what had led to the decline and stagnation of their societies?  What factors had contributed to their downfall?  Both al-Afghani and later Abduh would emphasize that Muslims had lost their way because they had succumbed to blind imitation of their forefathers and they had ceased tapping into the dynamic, progressive spirit of Islam that had made it a world civilization in an earlier period.  Abduh in particular stressed that religion was completely compatible with reason, and that reason, employed through the tool of ijtihad, should lead to sweeping social and legal reforms.  Although Western political domination should be resisted and Muslim countries liberated from colonialism, Western civilization in itself was not to be regarded as a threat to Islam.  And that modern science and technology in so far as they improved the quality of life and led to social advancement, should be embraced just as Muslims had once embraced the learning of the ancient Greeks, Persians, Indians, and so forth.  

Abduh made a very important distinction between two spheres of activity of Islam, one of which was badly in need of reform.  The first sphere of activity was worship as embodied in the five pillars; this formed the core of Islam and is unchangeable.  What remains is then a vast body of social relations and matters: commercial transactions, legal relations, public and family law that are subject to reform.  Abduh argued that the elaborate legal system that had grown up concerning these matters were conditioned by historical circumstances; as historical circumstances changed, the old legal rulings should be subjected to reinterpretation to reflect the new social realities.  As part of his agenda of social reform, he focused on women's rights and the issues of veiling and polygamy.  He was critical of both practices, arguing that the changed social situation demanded that these practices be curbed.

Muhammad Abduh's thought has been enormously influential among reform-minded Muslims.  He was a highly-regarded scholar and theologian and became the rector (president) of al-Azhar university, the Muslim world's most prestigious religious university.  Abduh, however, was in many ways ahead of his time, and during his lifetime had his share of critics.  After his death though and until the present time, he has remained easily one of the most widely-respected and widely read author on the topic of renewal and reform.  

SUBSCRIBERS TO POLITICAL ISLAM/ISLAMISTS:
Political Islam as a modern phenomenon arises in the early part of the 20th century.  Esposito refers to these groups as neo-revivalists, which is also an apt description of them.  Like the early revivalists, these neo-revivalists also believed that contemporary Muslim society should be reformed from within by modeling themselves closely on the early Muslim community at Medina.  Only by regenerating itself can it successfully establish a righteous government that would rule its subjects wisely and justly while successfully resisting Western imperialism.  In many ways, emphasis on a highly politicized Islam is a defining characteristic of these neo-revivalists, who are more frequently referred to as Islamists.  Islamists derive a broad political ideology from Islamic principles; it is due to their emphasis on political Islam that we are setting them apart from the other two groups.  

Political Islam can have many faces; some Islamists take the more militant and radical route, and these are the ones who regularly get into the media today.  The earliest such groups are the Muslim brotherhood, established by Hasan al-Banna (1906-49) in Egypt and the Jamaat-i Islami (“the Islamic society”) established by Mawlana Abul ‘Ala Mawdudi (1903-79) of India.  As Esposito points out, both men were personally pious, highly educated men both in the traditional Islamic sciences and in Western learning.  Both came to react strongly against British imperialism, under whose shadow they lived a part of their lives. 

Also importantly, they were reacting against a local elite that under European colonial influence had become Westernized to the extent that members of this elite spoke the language of the colonizers, imitated their dress and customs, and considered themselves secular.  Thus they were fighting the influence of both external and internal forces.  Islamists are both religious and social activists; both al-Banna and Mawdudi were very effective at organizing supporters at the grass-roots level.  They set up health clinics and social welfare projects that helped in gaining the loyalty of a cross-section of the middle and working class people.  The activities of these Islamists may be described as being part of a religious, socio-political protest movement that was committed to fighting political corruption and religious laxity, through violence if necessary. 

After the departure of the foreign colonial rulers, they continued their opposition to the local governments that were set up, often by the departing colonizers; these local ruling elites were thus perceived as representing Western interests at the expense of national interests.  If you have studied anything about modern Middle Eastern politics and history,  you will know that Arab governments that have ruled after the Second World War have off and on been primarily monarchies and military regimes.  As far as the Islamists were concerned, these governments, often corrupt and despotic, had no legitimacy and therefore they had a sacred mission to set up a just and righteous government that would govern according to Islamic principles.  If they have to resort to violence and lay down their lives for it; they were quite prepared to do so.  For them, jihad primarily came to mean the equivalent of just war or holy war to fight those whom they regarded as compromising Islamic principles.  Many Islamists, but not all, believe in what Mawdudi called theo-democracy; in other words, a democracy that called for power-sharing through consultation, according to the Qur’anic concept of shura.  They also believed in elections, because the Islamic principle of  bay‘a, which is a pledge an individual gives to his or her ruler, gives the right to the people to express their approval or disapproval of the government.  But it would have to be an Islamic democracy, subject to the tenets of the religious law, the Shari‘a, as interpreted by them.        

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood may embrace a variety of opinions.  Many of the current members in Egypt are moderates who seek to create an Islamic state by democratic means today.   In the earlier period, they did engage in violent and largely unsuccessful actions against the government.  The movement’s leading thinker during the period of Jamal Abdul Nasser was Sayyid Qutb who was accused of attempting to assassinate Nasser. Qutb was tortured and hanged in 1966.  Nasser banned the Muslim brotherhood (between 1954 and 1975).  His successor, Anwar al-Sadat lifted the ban on them; in 1976, 15 members of the Muslim Brotherhood were elected to Parliament.  However, a militant splinter group, the Jihad Organization (Munazzamat al-Jihad), assassinated Sadat in 1982 after his trip to Israel to sign a peace treaty with Menachem Begin, a trip that was regarded as a highly treacherous act.  Other militant groups who resort to violence to achieve their goals are for example, Hamas in the Palestinian Occupied territories and Hizbullah in Lebanon.  

And, finally, we should refer to modernist Muslims, who believe that the Qur’an and the Sunna can be reinterpreted so as to make their injunctions compatible with the modern world and that real change can come about only through long-lasting changes in the legal and educational systems; not merely through political changes, certainly not simply by overthrowing corrupt governments.  Modernists are, therefore, reformers.  Fazlur Rahman, whose works we have read a little bit of, was certainly one of these modernists, who emphasized that by correctly interpreting the Qur’an in particular, and not simply by accepting the views of the medieval commentators, modern Muslims could derive an authentically Islamic response to modern life.  Muhammad Arkoun, who is still alive and teaches at the University of Sorbonne in Paris, is also a liberal, modernist  Islamic thinker who advocates wholesale rethinking and reinterpretation of much of the traditional religious thought and structure.  There are many more such names, Hasan Hanafi in Egypt and Azizah al-Hibri, a Lebanese-American.   Tariq Ramadan is also influential among such thinkers.

ABOVE ALL, we must keep in mind that terms like Islamists, revivalists, modernists, mean a lot of different things and covers a whole range of responses to the modern world in particular.  There is no single, pat definition of any one of them.