Six Major Tendencies 2/2

Political Literalist Salafism. This is the second trend referred to earlier, and it was essentially born of the repression that has ravaged the Muslim world. Scholars and intellectuals originally attached to the legalist reformist school went over to strictly political activism (while they were still based in the Muslim world). All they retained of reformism was the idea of social and political action, which they wedded to a literalist reading of Texts with a political connotation concerning the management of power, the caliphate, authority, law, and so on. The whole constitutes a complex blend that tends toward radical revolutionary action: it is about opposing the ruling powers, even in the West, and struggling for the institution of the “Islamic state” in the form of the caliphate.
The discourse is trenchant, politicized, radical, and opposed to any idea of involvement or collaboration with Western societies, which is seen as akin to open treason. The Hizb al-Tahrir and Al-Muhajirun movements are the best known in Europe, and they call for jihad and opposition to the West (always considered as dar al-harb, the realm of war) by all means. These trends, which attract a lot of public attention, are represented only by structures and factional networks.

“Liberal” or “Rationalist” Reformism. Essentially born out of the influence of Western thought during the colonial period, the reformist school, presenting itself as liberal or rationalist, has supported the application in the Muslim world of the social and political system that resulted from the process of secularization in Europe. The liberals were the defenders of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s secularization project in Turkey, for example, and of the complete separation of the religious arena from the ordering of public and political life. In the West, supporters of liberal reformism preach the integration/assimilation of Muslims, from whom they expect a complete adaptation to the Western way of life. They do not insist on the daily practice of religion and hold essentially only to its spiritual dimension, lived on an individual and private basis, or else the maintenance of an attachment to the culture of origin.
The majority of liberals are opposed to any display of distinctive clothing that might be synonymous with seclusion or even fundamentalism. With social evolution in mind, they believe that the Qur’an and the Sunna cannot be the point of reference when it comes to norms of behavior and that it is applied reason that must now set the criteria for social conduct. Thus, the term liberal is here used in the sense the word has acquired in the West, which elevates reason and is based on the primacy of the individual.

Sufism. We must not forget the Sufi trend in the Western landscape. Sufis are in fact numerous and very diversified. Whether Naqshbandis, Qadiris, Shadhilis, or any of the many other turuq (plural of tariqa), Sufi circles are essentially oriented toward the spiritual life and mystical experience. This is not to say that Sufi disciples (murids) have no community or social involvement; the contrary is often the case. In the end, it is first and foremost a matter of priorities, which are determined differently: the scriptural Texts have a deep meaning that, according to Sufi teachings, requires time for meditation and understanding. This is a call to the inner life, away from disturbance and disharmony. Here the Text is the ultimate point of reference, because it is the way to remembrance (dhikr) and nearness (taqarub): it is the only path to the experience of closeness to God. The turuq are kinds of circles of initiation organized internally, with a specific hierarchy from disciples to guide (shaykh). Each order has its own mode of operation. We should also note that there are highly structured brotherhoods in the West that are directly linked with networks of orders in Asia and in North and West Africa. We know, for example about the organizational capability of the Murids and the Tijanes of Senegal, who operate most of the time in a closed circle but who maintain a very effective internal fabric of support and solidarity, both in Europe and in North America.

This presentation of broad trends in contemporary Islam is far from exhaustive, but it is made in the hope that it will at least have the merit of bringing out some nuances to counteract the dualistic simplistic readings of the situation that set the liberals over and against all the rest—the radicals and the fundamentalists. The situation is much more complex than that, and the boundaries are more subtle: their roots go back deep into history, it is true, but above all originate in particular ways of understanding the source Texts. The scholastic traditionalists, the literalist salafis, and the politicized and radicalized salafis, despite their divergences, agree on the fact that the Texts, whether the Qur’an or the Sunna (or even the views of the great scholars), can admit of no interpretation or distortion. Reason is useful for understanding the Text, but not, by extension, for determining its purpose. The Qur’anic Text is the obligatory route to initiation for the Sufi traditions. For the reformist salafis, the Text still remains the source, but reason, applied according to the rules of deduction and inference (qawaid al-istinbat), enjoys significant latitude for interpretation and elaboration through the exercise of ijtihad. At the other extreme of doctrinally fixed positions, liberal reformism gives priority to rational elaboration, while the scriptural Texts have a prime role in spiritual guidance and broad moral instruction, but always directed toward the individual, reflecting the way religious texts have come to be seen in the West in relation to the social and political life).

The distinctions we have described, based on the mode of reference to
“Texts/Reason,” can be represented diagrammatically as shown in figure
1.1.

At the end of this brief presentation, it is important to note that there are other, minor trends of thought in the West that are usually offshoots of or similar to sects (firaq). Their specific points of difference are based on certain very precise articles of doctrine that make them want to see themselves as distinct from all other Muslims, even to the extent of issuing general anathemas against them. There are varieties of these groups in the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Spain, as well as in other countries. It is impossible to make an exhaustive list of them here, but we may mention the sectarian group, the Ahbash, which originated in Lebanon and has its European base in Switzerland (Lausanne), while being active in Europe, the United States, and Africa. Often calling themselves the “Islamic Benevolent Association,” adherents carry on a permanent double discourse: to Western questioners, they claim to support the emancipation of women and laicism and to oppose the “fundamentalists” (all the issues they know are sensitive and useful for getting them recognized). However, within Muslim communities, they carry on an extremely intransigent and closed discourse, usually treating most of the principle Muslim ulama as kuffar (by which they mean “unbelievers,” “impious people”). They base their teachings on interpretations recognized as deviant by all other schools of thought and all other scholars of note (for example, their singular understanding of the meaning of the names of God, or their assertion that the Qur’anic Text was interpreted by the angel Gabriel, or the practice of praying to the dead). Their approach on very specific points of doctrine (such as those we have referred to) is hostile and usually violent.