Subscribe via RSS
Sign up on our Email list
Join the Facebook Group
Twitter Newsfeed
Podcast of Multimedia
iTunes ChannelThe Ruins of Traditional Islam
ShareI recently spent a few weeks in Fez, Morocco–an icon of what many call “traditional Islam.” Fez is often described as a fully preserved medieval city, a sanctuary where premodern rhythms of life still reign.
For those unfamiliar with this construct, “traditional Islam” is posited as the authentic alternative to the various modern reform movements–those that reject classical sources of knowledge altogether, those that simplify and codify core Islamic texts into a false universal, those well funded by Saudi oil money, and those who mix Islam with modern political ideologies. In short, traditional Islam is the organic cotton thobe, not the polyester one made in China. It is a masjid made of stone, not concrete. It is the Islam of beautiful piety, rather than ugly, intolerant austerity.
Most modern Muslim cities are a reflection of colonialism and the secular nationalist movements of the twentieth century. It is easy for Muslims to feel displaced and exiled from their own civilization, never sure what influences are defining their lives. For traditional Muslims, these cities are symbolic of deeper maladies. They reflect a change in education systems, land use, and social organization. In this respect, Fez promises a more authentic experience. After living in Cairo, which artfully combines the pollution and traffic of Los Angeles with the bleak congestion of New York, it is refreshing to imagine a pure, enduring Islamic alternative…but what I found was something quite different.
I first visited the old medina of Fez with a tour group (a sign, in itself, of how things have changed) and was immediately taken aback by the aggressive, ill-mannered salesmen lining the streets. Also troubling was their almost universal tendency to address me as “Ali Baba”, apparently linking my full beard with the old Arab legend (are there not other texts that might inspire one to grow a beard?). The first bit of relief came when we entered one of the city’s old madrassas. The architecture was exquisite, with layered levels of marble masonry, mosaics, plaster engraving, and carved wood decorating the structure. It also showed a brilliant functional design–a central fountain for purification, a forward prayer hall, classrooms with intricate acoustic designs, and semi-private residences ringing the courtyard. We were informed that the pillars are set on metal plates to dampen the shockwaves of earthquakes. The madrassa once functioned as a complete learning environment. Those sciences we now distinguish as either “Islamic” and “secular” were taught together.
So Fez was once a seat of learning, with impressive levels of knowledge and sophistication. But now this madrassa, and many others like it, have become part of the tourist spectacle. Even the small, active (and much less spectacular) madrassas along the main streets of Fez double as tourist attractions. The teachers invite in passers-by with the same enthusiasm as shopkeepers. Everything is for sale.
Another interesting aspect of urban design in old Fez is the internal spaces. Streets are kept narrow, sometimes shoulder width, to leave room for large interiors. Many old homes include open courtyards, providing the residents with a private, outdoor space. This obviously reflects Islamic sensibilities, incorporating into architectural design the virtue of modesty and the primacy of family life. The stacks of concrete apartments in modern cities cannot compete with this distinctive feature. But what goes on in those personal spaces has changed. The rooftops of Fez are much like those in any Middle Eastern city. They are saturated with satellite dishes. And while a few people may watch the sparse selection of religious channels, most are completely immersed in soap operas, pop music, and even pornography. I was traveling with a group of American teachers, all of whom stayed with Moroccan host families, and I heard many stories of families not praying at all, or the older generations praying while the youth remained glued to the television.
Another disturbing aspect of Fez is the minions of young men who chase and harass Western women all over the city. One cannot imagine this sort of behavior being tolerated in centuries past, even if droves of non-Muslim women had walked through the streets. Wild delusions about Western women’s promiscuity (and the desire for green cards) drive these sleazy parasites. And they somehow mistake gayish European fashions and hair gel for masculinity. This is the “Islam” that many women experience in Fez, a confirmation of all their worst suspicions.
There is one aspect of traditional religious life that still thrives in Fez. In the old center lies the Mausoleum of Moulay Idriss II, the city’s founder. Unlike the madrassa, non-Muslims are not permitted inside, so our tour group stopped at the door as others filed in and out. Our tour leader cheerfully explained how locals will come to visit the tomb, light a candle, and ask to be granted a male child, an easy childbirth, or other small blessings. There is even a “drive-through” window outside the tomb where you can deposit money before beseeching the long dead city father. And without the casuistry of scholars to claim otherwise, I can only think to describe this as grave worship, as blatant shirk.
I have to ask, is this the substance and message of traditional Islam? Does the beauty, wisdom, and past glory of Fez excuse or outweigh such a heinous practice? After all, as much as I admire the city’s historical legacy, it is only an ornament of this fleeting worldly life.
Ironically, I have always found the most appealing aspect of “traditional” American scholars to be their insights and wisdom concerning contemporary, MODERN issues. I also agree that we should not simply paint an Islamic face on modernity while ignoring or despising our own rich history (and further, using it as a basis to critique modernity). But I have always perceived one major flaw with traditional Islam, and for me, Fez confirms it…how can we raise the precolonial, premodern Muslim world as an ideal, when it is that very world that collapsed in the face of European ascendancy. In other words, the “modern reformers” of Islam are right to have asked, “Where did we go astray?” Rather than glorifying a beautiful old city like Fez, we should be asking, “How did the past greatness of this place evolve into such a bitter present?” In seeking an answer, the grave worship seems like an obvious place to start.
Fez is still home to the Qarawiyyin Mosque and University, a living center of classical learning. The adhan is still called from the minarets, and worshippers still respond. But without doubt, it is a city in steep decline. As an added humiliation, many Europeans are now buying property in Fez, further transforming the city into an exotic vacation resort. Allah has decreed the decadence of Fez just as he once permitted its glory, and we must reflect on both when charting our way forward. Traditional Islam is attractive because it draws lessons, inspiration, and wisdom from the full breadth of Muslim history. But we cannot market a frozen, precolonial past as the solution to our woes, when it is that very past that failed us. An Islamic Renaissance requires more than gentrification.
44 Responses »
Trackbacks
- If your head should explode from the size you are letting it grow to… I will be standing over there… « Writeous Sister Speaks
- Nuance « ?????
- muslimmatters.org » And One Year Ago, MM was Born
- Open Thread Sunday 7-6-08 | MuslimMatters.org
Entries(RSS)
What is “traditional Islam” really? I came across this term very recently like in last one year, even though I grew in muslim family who was practicing alhamdulillah.
So when I read it first, it did not bother me, it seems ok, I took it traditional as oppose to bidah, or as opposed to progressives who want to re-interpret islam to suit modern social values.
But then I found out, usually Ashari/Maturidi people with mix of sufism use this term as opposed to people who believe otherwise, like athari. But I am still confused why use this term as opposed to l”salafi” beliefs? It is not that salafi theology (regardless considered wrong by them) is modern invention in last 100 years. Its been there from always (or atleast since Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal from their point of view). So why not that is also part of traditional islam? I would have taken traditional islam as strict intrepretation of Quran and Sunnah as understood and practiced by sahabah. But it seems otherwise? Confusing.
An excellent article, jazakum Allahu khairan.
Did you get a chance to see what and how the material is being taught in the smaller, active madrasas?
I would be interested to know more about that and see how it compares to, for example, the small subcontinent madrasas.
People favor “traditional Islam” over the Islam we see in Saudi for one simple reason: The Islam of Saudi is permeated by the “negative” whereas “traditional Islam” is neutral. The Islam of the Salaf is seen as ‘closed’ while traditional Islam is seen as being ‘open’.
The most common example is forbidding the bidaah which is good—but not enjoining the good. So you forbid them from doing the one religious practice they actually do–leaving them wondering, what can they actually do? All those questions then fall on the ones who forbid the bidaah, and since we are still developing–we can’t always answer those questions and so another negative is added onto our image.
You are then seen as the frowning low-(uni)browed no-fun evil Molvi and not the saintly snow-bearded smiling saint. Go figure.
As salaamu ‘alaykum
Brother Musa, interesting thought provoking post.
Jazzak Allaahu Khayr.
Salaam.
Who’s Tradition is it anyway?
Ha! Well, that’s one approach to cracking this nut, and a well written post, by the way.
Like many things in this time of ours, we must reexamine it. We must quantify it and qualify it and like a job applicant, check its references. Scrutinize its pedigree.
One aspect of this that deserves further inquiry is how much does Modernity effect this neo-logisms that we see, hear and even use? So much about Modernity is about truncation and Reductionism. So instead of examining the vast breadth that is the religious/spiritual history of Muslims, Modernity comes along and slaps it all between two pieces of Wonder Bread and say, “eat”. And the Muslims have woefully taken a bite.
Another issue in some of this are these “let downs” that I see some people having when it comes to the ethnic Muslim world. I think there have been some odd misconceptions that these people are supposed to be fine, upright citizens of Muslim-ry only because they have Muslim sounding names or come from places that at one time practiced communal worship. A small item that is seldom noticed or appreciated is that each and every Muslim must make a choice – s/he chooses, every day, to be or not to be a Muslim. Some have chosen and some have not.
Societal degradation is the bastard child of Globalization. And believe me brother, this global culture we spew out, beautiful packaging and all, is far too tempting for anyone to not sink their teeth and souls into, lest they risk full ostrigization of engaging in this Beautiful Modernity.
What remains is the same question God has essentially placed before us: What are you going to do? What history will you live? What history will you write? What life will you live?
Thanks for the food for thought.
Excellent article!
Far and away the best article, stylistically and in terms of content, that I have read on this site. But something about it annoys me; I really hate it when a good piece raises a question that it fails to answer. Yes, provocative ‘journalism’ is great, but it always leaves me yearning for more.
What annoys me is the fact that different religious traditions have been asking the same questions about ‘modernity’, and have come up with solutions of a sort. But people still ask this question, still search for answers. And Musa asks the question, without giving us anything else.
And as for the past glories of civilisations such as that of Andalus- we shouldn’t forget, as you imply, that their greatnesses were mixed with something altogether more base. Within the civilisation of ‘High’ Islam, we have court impiety, heretical iconoclasm etc.
I find it telling that ‘Wahhabism’ is characterised solely as a movement ‘well funded by Saudi oil money’, when so many other things might have been said about it. Do I smell some sort of cynicism?
What do we do?
I disagree that “traditional Islam” collapsed in the face of Western ascendancy. Firstly, it creates the implicit inference that Western ascendancy had a counterbalancing relationship with the intellectual decline of the Ummah. This is problematic because it is historically incorrect. Even during the highest throes of subjugation, Islamic scholarship reached stunning heights at various portions of the Ummah. Secondly, many of the revivalists of Islam simply did not ‘collapse’ as you put it, but engaged in a noble and heroic resistance. Much of these resistance movements merged with the nationalistic movements that resulted in liberation of Muslim lands. The problem was not the West, but our own Muslims who were enamored by it and decided to imitate it in lieu of classical Islamic traditions. Thirdly, “traditional Islam” has no love for the past merely because it is in the past. It is not a fossilized tradition, but a living one and those who espouse traditional Islam today are just as capable of dealing with modern issues as classical scholars were able to deal with the issues of their day.
It appears as though the problem was and is of spiritual decline.
It was the displacement of authentic revealed spiritual practices with humanly/jinn designed and innovated practices which darkened the hearts and weakened the bodies.
The timber began to rot well before the western powers started to expand their empires. It’s just that when they got there everything was ready for the taking like people feasting from a single platter.
Have we already forgotten the stories of the trembling Muslim men slaughtered by a single Tartar woman?
The fact is that when the essence of Islam was destroyed, everything that radiated from that essence weakened and collapsed. If the Iman in Allah is corrupt from the start then how will the limbs become strengthened?
Sometimes we look at the worldy factors when the proverbial ‘elephant in the room’ that no one wishes to really discuss is that some aqeedah is shirk and some is not. Some practices are rejected by Allah whilst others are rewarded.
Some of the advocates for ‘traditional islam’ are even proposing that their are different schools of thought when it comes to bid’ah. That some types of innovated practices are good and praisworthy!?
I hope that in all our efforts of uniting the ummah, that we don’t lose the plot by compromising what the Ashaab of Rasool Allah were upon.
salaam aleikum,
this is the best, and in my opinion, most important line of this post:
>“How did the past greatness of this place >evolve into such a bitter present?” In seeking >an answer, the grave worship seems like an >obvious place to start.
fundamentally speaking once you start down the road of trying to answer this question, you will have to entangle yourself to the process of decolonization and of how it is still incomplete. Most of the so-called “national liberation” movements and ideas which arose in the Muslim world were simply concepts borrowed from western secularism — nationalism, socialism, communism, — which were then “Islamicized” i.e. repackaged as something from Islam. In some Muslim countries this process was force fed at the point of persecution — in Turkey the hijab was banned, keeping a beard was punishable by fines/imprisonment. Secular and nationalist movements were able to make this argument and acquire political capital because of the ignorance, backwardness, and irrelevance of the very same “traditionalists” that you are talking about. Many subscribe to a politically neutered form of Islam which is 100% subservient to the secular govts that now hold sway over the Muslim world, a process which the U.S. is itself keen on promoting when it said in the RAND report that the “Traditionalists” should be supported against the “fundamentalists” and that the “Modernists” should in turn be supported against the “Traditionalists”. This process was already implemented by European colonizers when they took most of the Muslim world.
salaam aleikum,
skh
WM said: “Far and away the best article, stylistically and in terms of content, that I have read on this site. But something about it annoys me; I really hate it when a good piece raises a question that it fails to answer. Yes, provocative ‘journalism’ is great, but it always leaves me yearning for more.”
Well we are Islam and we are without a doubt unlike any other force the world has ever known. So naturally, an answer is going to be very difficult to come by and cannot be done on the fly.
I have to agree that grave worship is a good place to start—but I disagree because that can steer you down the wrong road where one will only focus on the differences. Let’s face it: there have always been different groups amongst Muslims–even with the smallest differences and we will eventually have to understand this, otherwise we will never progress further and merely be left behind arguing amongst each other–creating more differences.
I think the first place we should start is by praying side by side with ALL Muslims–shoulder to shoulder and foot-to-foot so that Shaitaan doesn’t come between us. Isn’t that what the hadith states? Maybe after we can deal with our differences with a clear vision of our unity.
The intention of the present scholars of traditionalist movement might be good; however, people seem to attach some kind of glamor to the so-called golden era of Islamic history. My friends who support ‘traditionalism’ like to wear Morrocan and Syrian style clothings, they keep petty (for the lack of a better word) soveniers from such areas, they like to sit on the ground during religious halaqaat or reading Qur’an, etc….and they are whites & desis. There seems to be some razzle-dazzle way. So, a person like me, who has not been to Morroco and other ‘traditional’ cities has some kind of charismatic vision of those cities. Thanks Musa for removing the illusion!
A few responses to your comments:
First, as oldschool rightly identified, I was primarily attacking the “marketing” of traditional Islam, not everything that traditional Islam claims as its own…which of course is much more complicated. To be fair, I could have written about those who drape their narrow, ill-informed perspective under a “Quran and Sunnah” cloak, or those who preface their semi-learned, personal opinion with the statement, “the most authentic opinion is….” Alas, I was in Fez, so I wrote about that experience.
Next, Morocco is a beautiful country, and definitely worth a visit. Just keep your eyes open, and don’t treat it like the Islamic Epcot Center. There is actually a lot about modern Morocco that I find quite promising–with the caveat that you will find all extremes, society running in all directions at once, and no one can be sure what will win out.
As I hoped to make clear, I reject blanket condemnations of tradionalist scholars, but I really would like to see some clear, unambiguous disavowal of the grave worship. What I saw at that mausoleum in Fez was nauseating, and I’ve witnessed similar things in Egypt. Many try to justify those practices as a legal form of tawassul, seeking the intercession of a saint while believing that only Allah holds the power to respond. But when you see those simple people touching the graves with reverence, and explaining, in their own words, what they expect from the deceased sheikh…well, those justifications don’t hold much weight.
Moreover, even among those who justify the veneration of graves, it is considered shirk if one believes that benefit or harm comes from the sheikh, and not from Allah. Of course, in practice, that is exactly what happens. So assuming that their justifications are valid (which I don’t accept), they are still encouraging common people to stand on a cliff, overlooking the abyss of shirk, and walking right to the edge. Something is seriously wrong with that.
I still believe this Time’s solution rests within the hands a yet-formed vanguard. And each Place in this Time will have to have its vanguard. So again,
What Shall We Do?
Thanks, Musa.
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,
Many try to justify those practices as a legal form of tawassul, seeking the intercession of a saint while believing that only Allah holds the power to respond. But when you see those simple people touching the graves with reverence, and explaining, in their own words, what they expect from the deceased sheikh…well, those justifications don’t hold much weight.
I think the point is precisely that these are simple people, not people with close connections with traditional scholars. We have always made an effort to distinguish between traditional Islam, which is Islam according to the traditions of scholars, and folk Islam, which is Islam as practised by common people. I recall Abdul-Hakim Murad, when making a visit to a London university (King’s College, I think it was), being argued with by a “salafi” of Asian origin, who insisted that there was “actual grave worship” going on. Abdul-Hakim insisted that these were “peasant aberrations”, obviously meaning that he didn’t defend them.
Also, how confident are you that your tour guide who told you that these people are asking Moulay Idris for male children or easy childbirth was telling the truth, or speaking from knowledge? This is the sort of thing which goes on at shrines the world over, not just in the Muslim world, so no doubt this is what he or she imagined. I’m sure the guide is aware of the difference between using a deceased (or even living) pious person as an intermediary to Allah ta’ala and simply praying to that person – not! Was he or she even a Muslim?
As for the foreigners buying up riad homes in Fez and elsewhere, it’s a depressing phenomenon, because it runs the real risk of the natives eventually being forced out of their homes by skyrocketing rents to make room for holiday homes and perhaps the odd Gulfie or western Muslim. These people can afford to do this simply because their currency goes further, and they have lots of it. Anyone who wants to know what the effect of it could be only has to visit many of the more scenic parts of the UK, such as west Wales and Cornwall. As with Wales and Cornwall, Morocco is not exactly overflowing with jobs, so the buyers are likely to be holidaymakers or the buy-to-let brigade.
asSalamu `alaykum
“Also, how confident are you that…these people are asking Moulay Idris for male children or easy childbirth…This is the sort of thing which goes on at shrines the world over, not just in the Muslim world, so no doubt this is what he or she imagined.”
Two seconds of conscious thought would have been enough to make you realise that this stuff does go on in the Muslim world. Don’t take my word for it- travel and find out.
You’re right in saying that Mushrikeen don’t differ much from place to place. Even in the time of ibn Abdul-Wahhab, they used to invoke ’saints’ for children…
Yusuf,
I can assure you that the tour guide was a local, and explained everything in terms of “what we do”, giving us advice on how to get your supplications answered, etc.
I understand the distinction you make, but I’ve always felt that the position of traditional scholars is a slippery slope toward the excesses of folk Islam, and the adulation of “simple people” certainly seems to fuel the culture of sainthood. As I said, I do appreciate the insights of those scholars on many issues, but for this reason, I tend to keep my distance.
salamu aleykum
brother yusuf..what would help or prevent those simple people from worshiping graves..is not to have shrines to begin with…or create an extravagant burial site…
wa allahu swt. a3lam
AS
I hope you are well akhi Musa.
What you indicate to according to my read of your post is to two things:
1.] the dark reality of the Muslim world
2.] the obligation of da’wah
In any case, you raise issues that many us Muslims in the West are little exposed to and others aim to ignore and other try to address with various strategies and one of those is the da’wah to traditionalism. Here we have a problem, namely that a good many do not understand the problems of the Muslim world in a scientific way. So the matter of concern, the Muslim world has not been assessed critically nor wholistically. Also, da’wah in the West has little been studied as to how it should proceed.
Unto date few in the West among traditionalists would like to seriously address and answer the question as to why the traditional educational institutions of the Muslim world failed to meet the civilizational challenges of the new age? Wheras, in the East the issue of the decline of civilization is readily felt so it is readily discussed. As a person who loves traditional texts I would at least ask that traditionalists answer the above question for themselves rather than debate the legitimacy of traditionalism in a Western context.
Traditionalism in the West means something completely different than what it does in the East. With the maturity of Western civilization, good or bad, that most Muslims in the West enjoy, traditionalism finds a home because technological advancement represents the very spirit of tradition. It as if the traditional has grafted the face of al-Andalus to the West so he finds a home in the West in as far as the West indicates to the civilizational splendor that Muslims once enjoyed but he is alienated for other reasons. Early on traditionalism was colored by an anti-modern discourse, a carry over from those who promoted the ideas of Chomsky and perennialism. With an anti-modern streak coloring the da’wah to tradition in the West it makes it a matter of difficulty to envision how traditionalism can come to terms with modernity and beyond. Traditionalism in the West is a psychological space more than it is a realm program of action or orientation. It calls upon imagery and manipulates symbols so as to create an identity. In fact, traditionalism failed to deal with the realities of modernity and this is why Shaikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah {h} is invoked upon to translate how Islamic Law responds to change. Traditionalism then had to look to scholarship in the East to deal with the issues of how to apply Islamic law in a changing world, and in specific in a changing Western world. What it found in the like of Shaikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah was a less hostile discourse to modernity, democracy living in the West etc.
If traditionalism in the West does not tie itself to the da’wah to ijithad that we find in the East among many scholars who value tradition it will fail to be a psychology space of empowerment and identity and will collapse into a space of despair and confusion and irrationality. Also, traditionalism must collapse the idea of treated Western educated Muslims as “awaam” the herd mob incapable of comprehending the contours of Islamic thought. If it is to survive it must be a da’wah of literacy that aims at understanding how Islam applies today. Lastly, it must promote lifeembracing spirituality and must consider that the problems of Muslims in the West are not necessarily shared by Muslims in the East. So that their must be an honest assessment of the decline that the Muslim world is experiencing and it must tap into the best that the Muslim world is producing in terms of scholarship but keeping in mind the constraints and demands of life under modernity.
It is without question that traditionalism needs to reassess its stance toward modernity. The demand then it to understand how tradition speaks today and that means for the heads of traditionalism in the West that they move toward making clear the necessity to understand how the principles guiding tradition apply in the West rather than how the results or ijithad of tradition applies in the West. This will only be to embrace the efforts of Shaikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah {h} more seriously and promote his work. For the students studying to be Muftis and scholars in the East and who aim to return to the West or to influence da’wah their efforts ought not be accepted until they:
1.] train heavily in Maqasid ash-Shar’iah {objectives of the Shar’iah},
2.] are versed in comparative fiqh after having did work in a madhab
3.] understand evidences for the opinions they give, fatwa must be based on evidence and principles
4.] that they study the changing realities of the West thoroughly and that they learn to work in a group.
5.] they work towards decreasing sectarian differences without compromise of the truth
6.] they work to empower the community economically and politically via education
We do not need students of knowledge and would be Muftis to translate the East and its problems into a western reality as we see is the case at the moment. Nor do we need a one-man show. Traditionalism like any other da’wah is obliged to self reflection and to be open to advice and it is our hope that this post and its comments are taken as such, advice.
Shukran Akhi Musa
Asalaamu Alaikum
Abul-Hussein
Cairo, Egypt
1428 Rajab 29
2007 August 12
The worst case I’ve heard from a brother who went to Hajj with me. He said he met an old woman outside the kabah and she said to him “this is the grave of Allah mian”.
The brother told her to fear Allah and that Allah is not a dead man buried under the ka’bah but the Lord Alive and Ever Living!
This is the extreme of ignorance.
But the fact is that when you ignore the root causes, this is what it leads to.
The prophet forbade even building high graves or graves inside masajid. He salalahualaihewasalam even ordered Ali radhiallahu anhu to smash the built up graves and deface the statues. And this was because these things were the wasa’il (means) to shirk.
Fez is not a good example of a Traditional Islamic environment.
You should try Shaam or Hadramout.
Can somebody please define/explain what is “traditional islam”?
Abu’l Hussein et al,
Merely repeating the statement ‘traditionalism has failed’ does not make it true. What qualitative or quantitative evidence do you have to support this assertion? What is the standard of success or failure? Its premature to discuss the entire reformation of a legal paradigm merely because a few ignorant people visit graves. Moreover, I have constantly kept the company of ‘Ulema whether in the East or the West who condemn the very practices you speak of. The ignorant people are ignorant not because of the ‘Ulema but because they are not studying with them. There is a causal disconnect in all of the arguments that the ‘Ulema are somehow responsible for grave worship in Muslim lands. No one has sufficiently substantiated their claim. It is an extreme disservice to many of the ‘Ulema who have given their whole lives to the propagation of our deen to insinuate that they have done nothing to solve the problems of the Ummah.
A case example of Islamic revivalism is Deoband which is promoting Islam in four continents. Deobandism has produced social revivalism, political revivalism, and even military revivalism. To claim that this tradition has ‘failed’ simply because it has failed to defeat the West (which is the implicit standard of success in this article) is a poor conclusion.
Remember, even in the life of the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) people were apostating, their were rebellions, and betrayals. Merely because some of the people are misguided from Islam doesn’t mean that you can blame the ‘Ulema as the cause of it. This is a faulty conclusion.
In order for this article and those that are regurgitating it to be taken as a credible argument, it needs to be substantiated by a broad survey of the Muslim world and not merely on one’s weekend retreat to a resort city. If one claims that traditionalism has failed, one must first (a) define traditionalism, (b) define what success or failure is and (c) support the argument with specific case examples.
Just because particular locations that were once historical centers of the classical ‘Ulema has degenerated doesn’t mean that all of the classical ‘Ulema are failures. One could make a similar argument against Salafis in the West or Ikhwan al Muslimeen or Jamaat e Islami or various Sufis. Its an entirely subjective argument couched arrogantly in objective terminology. The article needs revision.
As brother jinnzaman said, please first define traditionalism, because defining may help a lot in understanding the issue (and article for me)
The ignorant people are ignorant not because of the ‘Ulema but because they are not studying with them.
Careful here! To suggest that they’re ignorant solely because they’re not studying w/shuyuwkh is bordering on Elitism. It is unrealistic to expect that all Muslim need to study w/a shaykh. In fact, this instance on such things leads to a whole assortment of other issues in my opinion. What is need, rather, is a basic creed ['aqiydah], that is woven in with the tapestry of quotidian Muslim life. People are far too busy and preoccupied [as well they should be!] to be expected to run off and study with shuyuwkh. No, we need a simple, bare bones creed that will avail the “common wo/man” from such grave mistakes [pun intended] as the above Association. Let’s keep it simple folks, People got lives to lead. We can’t expect folks to sit around studying when there’s a society to be run and lives to live.
Please exchange “instance” with “insistence” in the above comment. Thanks.
Jinnzaman: the fact that such shirk is so widespread teaches us what, if anything, about the ulema?
AS
Jinnzaman, this is the not the forum to entertain neither debate nor the questions that you are putting forth to me if you want to build a discussion based on this article and the comments I have made in response to it than I invite you to shaukani.wordpress with the condition that you look at me as your brother and that we leave the polemics and debate aside and be open to truth and help each other in the process.
I ask in the meantime that you consider the article seriously as akhi Musa Maguire lived in Egypt for some time and I am residing in Egypt for about four years now and I think we are talking from first hand encounter rather than emotional commitment. What is the problem with talking about traditionalism as espoused in the West that needs no definition it is quite clear what it means for Muslims in the West and we have whole website and institutes devoted to presenting what traditionalism is about. I suggest that you think through the matter this article is not an attack on traditionalism it is a call for reassessment of some of the premises of traditionalist da’wah as it is known in the West.
AS
Abul-Hussein
Marc,
What I meant by ’studying’ was not ‘enrolled in a maddrasseh program, but rather, interaction and learning.
If you were to say “the ‘Ulema are responsible for the problems in the old world because their students are engaging in these practices” that would be a fair statement if it was supported by specific case examples. However, to imply that the ‘Ulema are responsible for the innovations in the Muslim world is not thinking well of them. If you read fiqh manuals, such as Beheshti Zewar, they specifically condemn many of the practices that they see. The ‘Ulema give speeches and lectures constantly in the Masajid and at Maddrassehs. They produce literature and embrace the media. Yet in spite of all this, some people simply follow their ancestors or follow their desires and pursue this behavior.
My point is that the insinuation that the ‘Ulema are responsible for this sort of behavior is illogical. Neither the author nor those that agree with him have been able to establish a causal link between the two. Until then it remains, at best, a weak opinion.
Abu’l Hussein,
Wa alaikum assalam wa rahmutallahi wa barakatahu.
I have always thought highly of you and you are not only my brother in Islam, but my twin brother.
If I seem harsh, it is because the mentality exhibited in the comments that the article produced seems to be “aha! traditionalism is sucks!” and of course the immediate association that traditionalism is somehow responsible for grave worship and shirk. As I discussed above, such an assertion is at best, weak and requires significant substantiation in order to be taken as a credible and accurate assessment.
With regards to the claim that you are not referring to traditionalism in the West, I understand that point, which is why I was giving examples of the Deobandi school which is far from a ‘failure’ whatever subjective interpretation of that term a person wishes to utilize.
Again, in order for this discussion to be of benefit we need to define three things:
(a) what is traditionalism? Is there a distinction in the East and th West as some would like to think or are they essentially the same legal tradition that has resulted in the production of different legal conclusions due to different legal facts from a distinct legal environment?
(b) how does one define the success or failure of a legal tradition? Political and military success? Durability and evolution? Complete control and domination of people?
(c) If traditionalism has indeed failed in the old world, what specific case examples lead one to this conclusion and is it universally true that traditionalism has failed in the east or has it merely relocated and continued to exist in other areas?
Just some thoughts.
masalama
If I seem harsh, it is because the mentality exhibited in the comments that the article produced seems to be “aha! traditionalism is sucks!”
Jinnzaman – if this is what you took from the article, then, on Musa’s behalf, you have missed the gist of the article. I do not believe that is what Musa was talking about at all.
And to address the aspect of people interacting w/’ulama’, well, again, this may be a stretch for some folk who simply do not have access. Again, a culture that has its tapestry woven with basic creedal fundamentals would be able to avoid committing shirk even if they have nothing other than a village imam to look after them.
More over, the interesting part of all this is why do the [misbehaving] practices of some removed people in a removed part of the world [removed from us us, mind you] garner so much attention when in fact, more immediate and local matters come to mind.
As Salaamu Alaikum
Jinnzaman– I think you are trying to read this post as me taking one of two sides in a sectarian feud. That is not the case. Rather, I’m trying to undermine the polemics that fuel such things.
And you can trust that this article reflects years of personal experience, research, conversations, reading, etc., rather than just a weekend jaunt to a resort city (which Fez really isn’t anyway).
Incidentally, I did spend a weekend in Marrakech, which is very much a European playground. That place is a powder keg…but I’ll save that story for another time. Fez is more interesting, because the various forces interact without one completely overwhelming the others.
comon, even the very title “the ruins of traditional islam” is just begging to be misinterpretted! after reading your explanations within the comments, i believe i understand your intentions in the work, but jinnzaman is right here. you really need to be more careful with how you explain yourself so that you don’t say things that you don’t mean or that aren’t true.
and for anybody too arrogant to admit that the word “traditional” needs a good definition, allow me to provide three different interpretations for example’s sake:
1. traditional vs. conservative (which is what Br. Musa mentions as a sectarian conflict, referring to the disagreement between traditionalists who follow the established madhhab system and salafis who follow the “Qur’an and Sunnah and first three generations only” approach)
2. traditional in the sense of traditions and cultural practices (for which “folk Islam” seems a better term, as mentioned above)
3. traditional vs. progressive (ahlus sunnah wal jama vs. irshad manji and co.)
i hope that clarifies why your post needs clarification. i agree with jinnzaman that your post needs revision.
ibnmasood, jazak-Allah khyran, I almost cried for people not answering me and explaining what is traditional islam. The second and third make sense to me in terms of english definition of traditional, but what is significance of this word in the first category? Should not be salafis considered more traditional as they are following the traditions of Prophet PBUH, his companions, tabieen, taba-tabieen and anyone afterwards who follow them. And I think it is not about madhab only, more importantly aqeedah. So why traditional means ashari/maturidi aqeedah while it came so late?
I think someone needs to write a post on what exactly “traditional” actually means… I’m with Hassan on this one, I’m pretty confused!
Your need for a single, glaring definition isn’t going to happen. Like most things, “tradition” lies in the beholder. What is traditional for me may not be for you but often it is a tie to a perceived successful past, one that may altered in terms of the fringe but the garment remains the same. And that garment is usual clothed in Nostalgia and misconceptions about a glorious and noble past. It is often seen as either ahistorical or from its inception point forward, history-less, having some form of completed-ness to it. It is often a false universal response to other false universals [such as Modernity or Progressive Islam, etc].
Right Marc. Most “traditions” or their followers are not monolithic in any case, as interpretations of the same traditions can vary.
I believe there are some things that we can all agree on and Br. Musa pointed to one… grave-worshiping, no matter what garb that is enclosed in, is unacceptable. Of course, ignorance and other circumstances lead to ignorant behavior, but recognition is the first step to curing a disease in the Ummah. Those who defend mausoleums should recognize what behaviors these mausoleums are encouraging. On a related issue, I came across an article recently that seems to judge the legacy of scholars based on the conditions of their burial place! I intend to discuss the great ignorance and the despicable nature of such an analysis, which would seemingly place the lady of the Taj Mahal above the scholar buried with no other markers than a piece of stone… How sad is our situation when we are looking for beautifications of the world to judge the legacy of the deceased? May Allah forgive all of us.
For those who are so keen to defend ´traditional´Islam, please read the following blatant justifications for shirk…
1- asking the dead for your needs is similar to taking medicine
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=3752&CATE=24
2-all sunni schools are in agreement that this ´shirk´is valid
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=143&CATE=24
3-the hadeeth of the blind man (which could possibly be used for tawassul bi-dhat an-nabi) can be extrapolated as evidence to make duaa directly to the dead (read last paragraph)
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=141&CATE=24
4- and last but not least´”yes please, continue to make duaa to your dead shaykh, for your are practicing the sunnah…¨
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=3673&CATE=24
For those who said that this practice is only done by the ignorant folk, by Allah you are correct, but please realize many ´traditionalist´ulamaa are even more ignorant than the real ignorant if they justify such acts….
And BTW I am def NOT a saudi version salafi either, but this practice is just ridiculous. Ask a Hindu and many will tell you similar things as these ´traditionalists´in why they invoke their idols, in fact as we know this was what the people did at time of Rasool and the Quran came down condeming it from beginning to end.
you know when i saw those sunnipath links i thought that it might be some funky stuff that could probably be taken either way, but with that caveat i must say – that last link is quite blatant and shocking
At the risk of this turning into a name-calling, back-biting post, I will close the comments after a few concluding remarks:
First, please keep in mind that I am writing this as a poor, uneducated Muslim. Ever since accepting Islam, I have faced all the clamoring voices swirling around my head, claiming to represent the final word, the saved sect, the all-in-one solution, the only website you need, etc. There were times where I really wanted to take one of those easy answers. I just wanted the security and stability of looking no further. Alhamdulillah, my intellectual laziness, which can be quite substantial, did not overcome intellectual honesty.
This article addressed to the marketing of “traditional Islam” as one of the easy solutions that circulates among Muslims. I do not wish to posit a definition of traditional Islam, as some have requested, becasue I really don’t think that one exists. I think it is a more a way for certain groups to package their perspective, on a variety of issues, as the real, authoritative Islam…as is done by groups with completely opposing perspectives.
As I’ve said repeatedly throughout this post, there is much I find attractive, and even exemplary, about those who describe themselves as “traditional Muslims”, but there is also much that I find problematic–the idealization of either a pre-colonial or pre-Wahhabi past, the ambiguity on issues like grave worship, and the tendency toward sectarian polemics. This article expressed my personal experience– my attractions, curiosities, disappointments. and disgust. In some ways, my recent trip to Fez was a watershed of sorts on these issues, so it was worth expressing.
For those of you that I’ve antagonized, I would offer one bit of advice, if you can bear to hear it. The simplistic and binary thinking of traditional vs. salafi, or madhhab vs. no madhhab, or tasawwuf vs. taxkiyah, etc. etc. is a temporary solace. It will only take you so far, and often leads to a feeling of burnout (which doesn’t only happen to Salafis!) And for the scholars who promote such things, all I can say is “fear Allah.” Do not use your little slice of knowledge to toy with the hearts and souls of us simple people.
Anyone who wishes to continue this discussion, or scold me , or advise me, can email me at maguire at aucegypt.edu.
By the way, I just wanted to mention one other personal experience: Allah has blessed me with several children, and blessed my wife with relatively easy deliveries, and I have both sons and daughters. Alhamdulillah washukru lillah. And Allah bestowed this bounty on me while I directed my supplication to Him alone. I did not seek the intercession of any saints, and I am certainly not a saint myself! What I can say from my personal experience is to trust in the mercy and benevolence of Allah alone. It is sufficient.