WELCOME TO TRADITIONAL ISLAMISM

In ‘The Islamist’ ‘Ed’ Mahbub Husain talks of his family Pir as a Sufi sage from Bangladesh, more importantly he is described as an apolitical spiritual guide, as opposed to Mawdudi who was an ardent ’Islamist’. An ‘Islamist’ who mixes religion with politics, whilst  corrupting the teaching of Islam from that of a personal and spiritual ethical guide, to a political ideology that seeks power on state level. Further, from Mahbub’s account, Mawdudi was condemned by this Pir and his followers for this corrupt deviation. Well is ‘Ed’s’ depiction of his family Pir accurate?

The family Pir is none other than the Allama Abdul Latif Chowdhury, better known as  ‘Allama Saheb Qiblah Fultali’, a well known Sufi religious leader in Bangladesh, whose differences with Mawdudi were more on theological grounds than political vision per se. Some Deobandi and Brelwi scholars would indeed condemn certain aspects of Mawdudi writings, more specifically his theological opinions relating to the companions of the prophet. An example of this critique can be viewed in Gabriel Haddad’s adaptation of Al-Binnuri’s Arabic introduction to Shaykh Zakariyya al-Kandihlavi writings on Mawdudi.

Further, Mawdudi was critical of populist Sufism, that centred many of its religious practices around the veneration of saints and shrines. One of the reasons for this was Mawdudi’s background, being influenced by the writings coming from the late Ottoman reformers such as Rasheed Rida. Vali Nasr observes  in his book ‘Mawdudi and the Making of Islamic Revivalism’:

The Jama’at’s schismatic relations with traditional Islam were at least in part a result of Mawdudi’s attitude towards Sufism. Like some Islamic reformers who preceded him, and true to the spirit of contemporary revivalist thought, Mawdudi and the Jama’at were disdainful of Sufism and the traditional institutions associated with it… True to his modernizing perspective, Mawdudi found Sufism to be incompatible with his scheme of things. Sufism was of great importance to the major ulama groups in Pakistan, the Deobandis and the Brelwis, and they found Mawdudi’s attack on Sufism just as his contentious as his exegisis on juridicial and theological matters. In Punjab and Sind, Sufism played an important role in the popular culture of the masses and eventually in their politics … In his correspondence with ‘Alau’ddin Shah, a Naqshbandi Pir in Punjab who was also a relative, Mawdudi accepted the truth of Sufism, though only as practiced  by the venerated Shaikh, not the popular Sufism of the Chishti and the Qadiri orders whose structures of authority were based on Sufi shrines and the festivals and rituals associated with them

It is this type of attitude that brought him and many of his followers in direct collision with many of the populist Sufi movements in the Indian subcontinent. Their difference was not on the issue of the applicability of Islamic law to social and political domains, but rather revolved around the legitimacy of Sufi practices and certain other theological views. It goes without saying that Mawdudi’s idea of direct political social action to bring about an Islamic social order, as opposed to the ideas that centre around the internal reforms of individuals (Islah An-Nufus), is another key difference.  This video is one of Allama Fultali ‘Bayat’ initiation ceremonies, and in the advice after the initiation he emphasizes the idea of ‘Islah An-Nafs’ or the reformation of the self.

Moreover, if you visit the archives of the website dedicated to the memory of Mahbub’s family Pir, (some of these texts have disappeared from the more recent vision of the website), you find:

He believes that the proper Islamic education can bring an intellectual renaissance in the country and through this enlightenment it is possible to establish Islamic Society and Islamic Order in the stately affairs, and that is why Saheb Quiblah has founded the ANJUMANE AL-ISLAH BANGLADESH.

For Allama Fultali revival was about spiritual renewal of individuals via education and charitable work, which would then form the germs or seeds for a greater enlightenment and more specifically an “Islamic Order in the stately affairs”. He may have not been a revolutionary thinker as Mawdudi, but to claim that the key difference between this traditionalist version of populist Sufism and Mawdudi, was on the issue of the application of religion in state affairs, holds no water. If anything, according to Mahbub’s criteria, Fultali was indeed an ‘Islamist’! This is why I argue that we cannot make distinct categories, as Mahbub and Majid would argue, between ‘Islamists’ and ‘traditional Islam’. This categorization does not stand, as many ‘traditional’ scholars were part of ‘Islamist’ groups e.g. Sheikh Abdul-Fattah Abu-Ghuddah from Aleppo (a leader of the Brotherhood)  was a famous Hadeeth master and Naqshbandi Sufi. Further, those who were not members of such groups did not differ with the idea that ‘traditional Islam’, as passed down in the writings of the classical scholars, does indeed have a vision for society and state affairs. The writings of Abdullah Ben Bayyah, which will be focused upon in the future, will attest to this fact.

‘Ed’ is co-opting, in a superficial manner, the apparent spiritual practices of many Sufis, to then claim they were simply concerned with personal ethics and a spiritual life. This cannot be furthest from the truth, it goes without saying that Mahbub’s reading is a projection of his New Labour commitments onto a social religious phenomenon, despite his projection being completely false. This projection is driven by his own political commitments to the Blairite New Labour project, and specifically figures such as Dennis MacShane, Ruth Kelly and Mark Bright of the New Stateman.

Mahbub’s witch hunt of ‘Islamists’ smells of political McCarthyism. His parroting of sound bites such as ‘monocultural ghettoes’, communal politics and separatism comes direct from the New Labour hymn book. The defeat of New Labour in East London by an alliance of Brotherhood inspired Muslims, elements of the left and George Galloway further spurned more animosity. His diatribes against these elements of the left, in his book, attests to that fact. In ‘The Islamist’ Mahbub states outright that he is a New Labour campaigner in East London and the sudden appearance of his memoirs alludes to some networking within the New Labour party apparatus and the national media, which are putting him forward, in a propaganda stunt, as some native informant or ‘poster boy’, a role Mahbub gladly complies with. This despite Mahbub holding no credentials whatsoever, other than a brief stint as a novice (and not member) with Hizb-ut-Tahrir when studying for his A-Levels, followed by attending some circles run by Brotherhood inpired organizations!

Some PR has been used to paint him as someone who was part of the ‘dark side’ and in the know, while anyone reading his memoirs knows how baseless this is, judging from the basic mistakes and inaccuracies that are rife in his book. In this sense, Majid was a God send for this man. Above all, we know from the case of Rowan Williams, the media does not do nuance. Hence, ‘Ed’ and the media can be described as a marriage made in heaven. All this leads to a conclusion: Is Mahbub’s compliance due to his own political aspirations? Will Mahbub please clarify, never mind…