Essay on Reform Movements (Incomplete)

 أشهد أنْ لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له وأشهد أن محمدًا عبده ورسوله

The First Congregation of Believers

At the time of the most holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم the newly established community of Faith, the Muslims, were one without any deviation in terms of beliefs, practices and methodology. There was no multiplicity of sects or significant theological differences among the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم. There were, however, the Munafiqin or hypocrites, the most notorious among them being Abdallah bin Ubayy bin Salul. But they did not challenge or deviate from the beliefs and practices of Islam at least outwardly. They were only named hypocrites because they concealed disbelief in their hearts while outwardly professing Islam, camouflaging themselves among the Sahabah. For this reason the Munafiqin were not considered a deviated sect. In reality they were not even Muslims or from the Ummah, but a particular category of unbelievers. The Sahabah were the first Jama’ah or congregation of the Muslims of this Ummah. After the death of the most holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم the Sahabah generally agreed that his senior most companion, sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه, should be elected his first successor and take charge of the leadership of the nascent community. It was during the caliphate of sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه that a major apostasy took place among the freshly converted Arab tribes outside Medina where the Sahabah and the Khilafah were based. The apostates, especially those who reverted to idolatry or supported the pretenders like Musaylimah bin Habib and others, were not deviated sects within the Ummah, but like the hypocrites, merely a particular category of unbelievers. Thus even at this stage it could be said that the Ummah of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was unified and protected from deviation, notwithstanding the emergence of hypocrites and apostates.

The First Breakaway Sects

None from the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم ever deviated from the Truth or entered into a misguided, breakaway sect of the Ummah. For this reason, the Sahabah are the standard-bearers of Truth for this Ummah that all the other generations of this Ummah are obligated to follow and adhere to. The Muslims who do so are upon orthodoxy and are known as Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, meaning the people of the Prophet’s Sunnah and the Congregation of the Sahabah. Adherence to the Sunnah is what generally distinguishes the people of Truth from the breakaway sects. The breakaway sects tend to claim support for their misguidance from their wrong interpretation of the Quran. The people of Truth refute those wrong interpretations and ideas in the name of the Quran from the Prophet’s Sunnah. For example, the deviant Ibn Saba, who was in reality a hypocrite and infiltrator motivated by a desire to cause dissension among the Muslims in revenge for Islam’s apparent triumph over Judaism, introduced the concept of Raj’ah into the Ummah – the belief that some of the deceased will return to this world before the Resurrection. This belief was inherited by the Shi’ah and is held to by them till this day. Ibn Saba quoted the Ayah of the Quran:

اِنَّ الَّذِیۡ فَرَضَ عَلَیۡکَ الۡقُرۡاٰنَ لَرَآدُّکَ اِلٰی مَعَادٍ

Indeed, the One Who ordained upon you [O Prophet] the Quran will surely take you back to a place of return

(Surah 28:85)

Ibn Saba argued that it refers to the return of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم to this world sometime in the future, whereas the correct, orthodox and Sunni interpretation of this Ayah is that it refers to the fulfilled prophecy of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم being brought back to his hometown of Mecca after having been driven away from it. The fact that there is no teaching from the Sunnah to validate the doctrine of Raj’ah nor did the Jama’ah of the Sahabah believe in it is a reason to reject it. In other words, those like the Shi’ah who affirm the doctrine of Raj’ah deviated from the Sunnah and the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم and are therefore manifestly identified as a breakaway sect.

It was during the third caliphate, the caliphate of sayyidina Uthman رضى الله عنه, that the first breakaway sects emerged from within the Ummah. They were characterized by some degree of deviation from the Sunnah and the way of the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم. So by definition none of the Sahabah ever joined one of these first breakaway sects that emerged in their very lifetime. The Khawarij were a cohesive group that may be identified as the first breakaway sect within the Ummah. Though their roots are in the wrong ideas that some individuals began to express even during the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and especially among some of those who were responsible for martyring sayyidina Uthman رضى الله عنه they did not emerge as an actual sect until the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه. Among their deviations was the idea that the commission of a major sin was equivalent to disbelief and apostasy from the Faith. They had the audacity to declare not only some of the Sahabah apostates but even the caliph sayyidina Ali al-Murtada رضى الله عنه whom they were previously under allegiance to. The modus operandi of the Khawarij is to declare rulers of the Muslims apostate due to a major sin or disobedience to the Shari’ah, and then raise the sword against them in which the blood of many ordinary Muslims who remain in allegiance to the government considered apostate by the Khawarij is also shed.

Another early breakaway sect were the Qadariyah. They rejected the belief in Qadar established from the Sunnah that Allah Most High has predetermined and preordained everything that His creation does, and everything that befalls them of good and evil. Instead, they believe that humans create their own deeds, and from this angle, they make humans independent of Allah. This is why the Qadariyah are in fact dualists and why the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is reported to have spoken of them in advance, comparing them to the Magians (Zoroastrian dualists of Iran). The Qadariyah introduced this misguided concept into the Ummah as they saw it as a necessity to answer the problem of God being just and therefore not reckoning humans for that which they are not responsible for. In the imagination of the Qadariyah, for God to punish humans for misdeeds that He Himself is the creator of is unjust. This perverted understanding of Adl or justice by the Qadariyah was inherited by the later Mu’tazilah sect who codified it into one of their five main principles, and why the Mu’tazilah named themselves ahl al-Tawhid wal-Adl (people of monotheism and justice). Incidentally, this false doctrine of the Qadariyah in the name of Adl was likewise inherited by the Shi’ah. Like the Mu’tazilah, it is one of the five principles of faith for the Ithna Ashari (Twelver) branch of Shi’ism, which is its largest branch.

Another early breakaway sect were the Murji’ah. In a sense they were the polar opposite of the Khawarij, especially on the question of Faith. While the Khawarij said that major sins nullify a person’s faith altogether, the Murji’ah said that deeds have no bearing on faith whatsoever, to the extent that the faith of the Angels, the Prophets and the Righteous (like sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه) was absolutely equal to the faith of the most despicable sinners of this Ummah! The orthodox Sunnis and especially the Hanafis are accused of being Murji’ah or having inherited the misguidance of the Murji’ah, an accusation levelled against them usually by the Khawarij and the Shi’ah. In the understanding of these misguided groups, the Sunnis are Murji’ah because they do not hold rebellion against a corrupt or sinful Muslim ruler valid. The narrative of the Shi’ah in particular is that despotic dynasties like the Umayyads and Abbasids patronized the doctrine of the Murji’ah as it would profit them if the Muslims were dissuaded from raising the sword or even questioning their tyranny. The Murji’ah then, according to this false narrative, morphed into the Sunni sect. Yet history reveals the falsehood of this narrative when we examine the uprising of the Murji’ite al-Harith bin Surayj in the mid-8^th century CE. That the Murji’ah did not make takfir (excommunication from Islam) of the sinful Muslim rulers in contrast to the Khawarij did not preclude them from making khuruj (armed uprising) against the same rulers. In other words, for the Murji’ah, the question of defining faith is unrelated to the issue of raising the sword against a government that professes Islam.

Now let us come to another early major breakaway sect in the Ummah, namely, the Shi’ah. The common denominator among all the branches of Shi’ism, both moderate and extreme, is the idea that the progeny of the most holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, through his daughter sayyidatuna Fatimah and through sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنهما are entitled to the office of the caliphate and to lead the Ummah. They either regard the caliphates of the Caliphs who preceded sayyidina Ali as usurpation, or at the very least, a calamity. Therefore, the issue of leadership is the focal point of contention for Shi’ism and their point of departure from orthodoxy. Historically, the armed conflicts that occurred among the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم during the caliphate of sayyidina Ali كرم الله وجهه were purely political, with none of the factions constituting separate religious sects within the Ummah, but the Shi’ah have given theological and sectarian coloring to these conflicts in stark contrast to the orthodox, Sunni narrative. From our perspective, Muslims being unified and protected from sectarian dissension (by definition that means dissension with regard to beliefs and religious practices) does not preclude them from being affected by political dissension and conflicts. The holy Quran itself alludes to this possibility in the Ayah:

وَاِنۡ طَآئِفَتٰنِ مِنَ الۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ اقۡتَتَلُوۡا فَاَصۡلِحُوۡا بَیۡنَہُمَا

And if two parties of Believers fight, make peace between them

(Surah 49:9)

But rather than viewing the armed conflicts among the Sahabah at Jamal and Siffin as fights between parties of the Believers as per Surah 49:9, the Shi’ah consider them battles between Iman and Kufr, necessarily considering those among the Sahabah who politically opposed sayyidina Ali كرم الله وجهه including the mother of Believers A’ishah رضى الله عنها apostates and unbelievers!

The Medieval Period of Orthodoxy

For a long time, throughout the Middle Ages, Sunni orthodoxy was manifest and easily identifiable. They not only constituted the vast majority of the Ummah especially the common people, the breakaway sects of heterodoxy like the Khawarij and the Shi’ah, had become quite distinguishable from them. With notable exceptions, the dynastic Muslim rulers also fell into the mainstream Sunni fold and favored the orthodox community, or Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, over the misguided Kharijite and Shi’ite factions, which were often in open rebellion against them. The emergence of Kalam theology, however, was a great tribulation during the Middle Ages for the Ummah. Here the deviations began to occur in matters of theology, specifically relating to the divine attributes of Allah. A man named Jahm bin Safwan was perhaps the first to introduce the false doctrines related to theology of God’s attributes into the Ummah. In summary, the deviated sects of Kalam theology, most prominent being the Mu’tazilah, argued that affirming multiplicity of distinct divine attributes for Allah, such as life, will, power, sight, hearing, knowledge and speech, was tantamount to polytheism. Hence, in the name of monotheism the Mu’tazilah separated from the mainstream, orthodox Congregation of Believers and formed their own breakaway sect. The Mu’tazilah combined within them both the deviations of the Qadariyah whose discussion has already preceded and that of Jahm bin Safwan’s Kalam theology, a general tendency to negate the multiplicity of divine attributes for Allah in the name of monotheism. At the height of the Mu’tazilite tribulation, Allah Most High sent the Imam and Mujaddid (Reformer) Ahmad bin Hanbal رحمة الله عليه to defend and clarify the orthodox Sunni creed with regard to this theological controversy. While the government of the time persecuted the pious Imam, who is rightfully titled Imam Ahl as-Sunnah, the Muslim masses gathered behind him and till this day all those Muslims who identify as Sunnis universally regard him as a Mujaddid and great Imam. It was also during this period that Sufism emerged as a tendency within the Sunni mainstream. The great early Sufi saints, Habib al-Ajami, Dawud at-Ta’i, Harith al-Muhasibi, Sirri as-Saqati, Ma’ruf al-Karkhi, Junayd al-Baghdadi, Bishr al-Hafi, Dhun-Nun al-Misri, Sahl at-Tustari, al-Fudayl bin Iyad, Abd al-Wahid bin Zayd, Ibrahim bin Adham, Abu Yazid al-Bistami, etc., were certainly orthodox Sunnis. Even the most conservative Sunni branch, namely the Hanabilah, has produced two of the greatest Sufi saints in the history of the Ummah, Abu Isma’il Abdallah al-Harawi and Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani. The early Sufi mystics themselves were heavily influenced by figures among the Sahabah and Salaf رضى الله عنهم who exemplified Zuhd (asceticism) and a mystical disposition, for example, Amir al-Mu’minin Ali bin Abi Talib, Imam Ali as-Sajjad, sayyidina Salman al-Farisi, sayyidina Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, sayyidina Uways al-Qarani, Imam al-Hasan al-Basri, Farqad as-Sabakhi and Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq. Sufism was a great asset for orthodox Sunni Islam in spreading itself especially among the Ajam (non-Arabs) in the eastern lands, and curtailed the expansion of misguided groups like the Shi’ah and the Mu’tazilah that were competing for souls in those same regions. The Mu’tazilah as an independent and cohesive sect eventually vanished, sealing the triumph of orthodox Sunni Islam in the theological controversies introduced by Kalam. However, another tribulation arose with the rise of the Asharis and Maturidis who set themselves apart from the conservative Hanbalis who hitherto represented Sunni orthodoxy in the theological controversies of Kalam. The Asharis and Maturidis are, in a sense, compromise positions between hardline Hanbali orthodoxy and the deviations of the Mu’tazilah. However, the differences between the old school Hanbalis, also known as Atharis, and the Asharis and Maturidis are not significant enough for any of them to fall outside the scope of Sunni orthodoxy. Nevertheless, hardline and extremist elements within each of these three schools of theology (Asharis, Maturidis and Atharis) may not recognize each other as orthodox and Sunni. From my perspective, the Hanbali/Athari camp is closest to the Truth, and there are some problematic aspects of the Ashari creed particularly with regard to their belief about the holy Quran not being the literal speech of Allah in its wording but only a representation of it. It is also apparent that the early orthodox Muslims emphatically affirmed that Allah تعالى is above Heaven and upon the Arsh (Throne) in His Person. This belief is not only repeatedly taught in the holy Quran and in the Hadith, but also established in the Torah, the Zabur (Psalms of David) and other heavenly Scriptures of old.

Later Reform Movements

As predicted by the holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم the latter part of the Ummah began to deviate en masse from the Sunnah and the way of the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم. Innovations with regard to tomb veneration and supplicating to deceased Saints the way Believers are meant to supplicate to Allah alone sadly became prevalent in many regions of the Muslim world. Those who engaged in these innovative and even idolatrous practices often identified with Sufism and Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, or the name of Sunni orthodoxy, despite clearly having strayed from the fundamentals of the Faith worse than the earlier breakaway sects already mentioned. But the promise of divine protection for this Religion manifested once again in the form of the sending of Mujaddidin (Reformers) to repudiate the innovations and deviations and re-establish the correct beliefs and practices of Sunni orthodoxy. Among those Reformers was certainly Imam Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab رحمة الله عليه. The so-called Wahhabi movement was instrumental in re-establishing monotheism in the heartland of Arabia. It also influenced similar reform movements in India, associated with Reformers like Sayyid Ahmad and Shah Isma’il, the two martyrs who waged Jihad against the Sikh tyranny. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was himself influenced by Muhammad Hayat as-Sindi, a Naqshbandi Sufi sage. In fact, since the time of the Mujaddid Alf Thani, Ahmad Sirhindi رحمة الله عليه, the Naqshbandi order played a prominent role in reforming and purifying the Muslims from innovations that emerged as a consequence of influence from the misguided Shi’ah and other religions especially in India. For a time, this great legacy of Reform was inherited by the family of Shah Abdur Rahim, particularly his son the great Reformer Shah Waliullah and later Shah Abdul Aziz. This family was based in Delhi and were truly the spiritual leadership of Sunni Islam in the Indian subcontinent in the 18^th century CE. In the region of North Africa, the Sanusi movement during the 19^th century CE mirrored this tendency to purify the conception of Sunni Islam from some of the innovations and practices bordering on idolatry. It also advocated for reforming Sufism to keep it in line with the Shari’ah and the Sunnah, the same legacy of Naqshbandi Reformers in the Indian subcontinent, Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah, men who were instrumental in combating the tribulation of antinomianism.

Anti-Colonial Struggles and Nationalism

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم accurately predicted the onslaught of European colonialism upon this Ummah when he said:

‌يُوشِكُ ‌الْأُمَمُ ‌أَنْ ‌تَدَاعَى ‌عَلَيْكُمْ ‌كَمَا ‌تَدَاعَى ‌الْأَكَلَةُ ‌إِلَى ‌قَصْعَتِهَا

“Soon, the nations will invite (one another) to partake of you, as diners call one another to a large dish.”

(Sunan Abi Dawud)

Generally, Muslims of all classes and backgrounds have a very negative perception of European colonization of their countries. A more nuanced view will, however, appreciate the consequential modernization of technology and infrastructure, the liberation, in some areas, of the weak Muslims from their oppressive overlords (whether Muslim or non-Muslim), and the granting of an opportunity to the Ulama and Sufis to increase their influence over the masses due to the vanishing of the previous corrupt institutions associated with the Muslim State that was colonized. The real catastrophe of the anti-colonial struggles, however, was that when they succeeded in forcing out the European imperialist they replaced foreign rule with something even worse, secularized and indeed anti-Islamic autocracy. The anti-colonial struggles also resulted in the rise of ethnic nationalism throughout the Muslim world, where the Muslims now began to identify more with their ethnicity or nation instead of their religious identity and the Ummah. The Dervish movement in Somalia, led by Salihiyah Sufis under Muhammad Abdullahi Hassan (dubbed the “Mad Mullah”) originally had stated religious motives in opposing the British and the Italians but later devolved into a vague tendency of Somali nationalism. Perhaps it did contribute somewhat to preventing or at least delaying the modernization and cultural Westernization of Somalia that neighboring Muslim countries were unable to accomplish by and large. Likewise, the Mahdist movement in Sudan, led by Muhammad Ahmad of the Sammaniyah Sufi order, could not properly divorce its apparent religious credentials with its Sudanese nationalist tendency.