Modern Thinkers and Trends in Islam
Week 1. Background and Typology
The issue of typology — terminology within this course is not fixed, though some are useful
in certain contexts, often even these are fluid. Rather than focusing on labeling, we will focus
on what people do and think and thereby arrive at their typology. Always be clear in your
own definition when writing terms.
However, typologies of past trends/movements are already set:
● Revivalism (18-19th c AD)
● General sense that something was wrong with Muslim society. Their criticism
was directed at folk Islam and superstition, and tribal and local structures.
They looked towards scripture.
● Examples: Wahhabites in Arabian Peninsula, destroyed tombs, very strict
interpretation and strict Hanbali traditionalism, also known as a revival of
kharijism (condemnation of other Muslims - Taqfir). Militant Sufi orders. British
India force.
● Reformism/ Modernism (late 19th c AD)
● Response to colonialism by adopting modern (Western) ways and adapting
Islam to modern times (example of constitution). Islam was an ideal past, to
be used for the present; they saw no contradiction with modern ideas.
Focussed on Ijtihad, not jihad.
Trends in 10th-21st century:
Quranism: Qur’an as only source of Islam and Islamic Shari’a. Started in the 1920s, look up
leaders and more info.
Part of the general trend is use of Islamic theology, done by a return to the sources
(fundamentalism, puritanism). Whereas previously scholars had made certain decisions, this
was revolutionary because people did not want to necessarily listen to these scholars but
find out for themselves. The outcome of this may be ‘conservative’ or very ‘liberal’ (highly
subjective terms, of course). Thus, there is not just one conclusion, this return to the sources
kind of opened Pandora's box. The outcomes are different from standardized theological
scholarship (orthodoxy, traditionalism). These trends are used to improve one’s life
(personal, individual) and to improve society (social, collective). But, why now? Thus we
must look at context —
1920-1970: continuation of modernity, now mixed with independence, becoming modern
nation-states. This energy was fueled by certain ideologies: nationalism, secularism and
socialism. Religion hardly played a role, especially for the rulers (even seen as something
backwards). Yet there was already a new generation of Islamic thinkers becoming very
prominent between 1920-50: (people on slides).
1970-now: Religion comes to the forefront in the whole world - global religionisation. Israel
and Pakistan showed this movement greatly, it had not only to do with religion but identity
and unity. Ironically, though they were in name religious, their system was quite secular and
issues of religious legitimacy of individuals became a topic of discussion.
From piety to politics — inner circle: personal piety, middle circle: societal, outer circle:
political. Muslim individuals/societies/institutions started from the inner one but moved to the
outer.
1
,Two general labels:
“Fundamentalism” changes through personal reform, state or society? (Bottom-up)
“Islamists” changes through legislation, state form (top-down) (people were unhappy, rulers
were to blame)
Often referred to as Islamists were Muslim Brotherhood (1928) in Egypt and Jamaat Islami
(1941) in Pakistan/Bangladesh. Their succes was mainly because they delivered
human/societal needs, where the government failed (e.g. hospitals). They served needs, but
also had an agenda — political. Restructuring of a society, in this case completely Islamic
through structural changes (government, law) on the basis of Islamic tenets.
Some islamists might be called liberal - “Islam describes democracy, good governance” -
others conservatives - Islamic law - and others militants - “Muslim society is not Muslim.” The
labeling of these is arbitrary, but what these people thought and did was not, it was reality.
The question of how: democratic means (legislation, government)?
Giving into Islamist sentiments: Anwar Sadat (Egypt 1980), Bhutto (Pakistan, 1974).
Succeeded by others, often in the form of coups e.g. Khomeini, Zia ul-Haqq, Numeiri
New trend: Salafism
Confusing because the salafiyya movement of 20/30s modernists is not what we mean
nowadays. Nowadays, it has turned into outside labeling rather than self-labeling.
Comparing the two there are similarities: return to sources, improvement of muslims lives
and self-assertion vis a vis the West. However, there are also great differences:
interpretation of the sources, (in)tolerances to other Muslims, and the notion of ‘Modernity’.
We need to keep in mind the use of Islamic theology, the purpose of that use, sign of the
times, and practice of Islam. Or to put it differently, the means, goals, and circumstances. In
these lectures we will look at what do people want, what do people do, and how do they
(want to) achieve that, and finally how can we label them. Thus, the purpose of typology is to
categorize and to make sense. Possible problems include making reality subservient to
typology.
Typology in relation to the readings
● Bouyahya about Morocco. Self-labeling of Muslim/Salafi, outside labeling os Islamist
(with sub-categories)
● Shepard takes a two-axis approach, looking at Islamic totalism (Islam to Islamism)
versus Modernism (traditional to secular)
Example cases Berger
● Bangladesh 2006, attacks on women in villages and attacks on donor activities in
villages. The media said Al Qaeda/Islamic extremists were coming, embassies said
to research the Islamists — heavy dependence on labeling. Two leading parties
(secular) led by two women, allowing a third smaller Islamic party to gain widespread
followers. Islam became more important in political discourse because of this political
conflict. Micro-financing was decided better off with women, because they were
sensed to be more financially responsible by the NGOs. What was happening was a
response because it was seen as an attack of patriarchy as they did not go through
the imams.
● North Macedonia 2014, Saudi sponsored mosques, women in niqab, and young
Macedonians who studied the ME became critical of established Muslim
organizations. Only a third of Macedonians is Muslim (most of Albanian ethnicity) —
is it a minority fight, or internal muslim struggle? Two historical issues: infrastructure
of state and religion - “religious communities.” Claim of freedom of religion but done
2
, through regular payments to the institutions, thus there is a power structure. Other
issue was end of civil war (’91-’01), independence of (North) Macedonia in 1991. The
response was emphasizing christianity/ identity of christian population, which divided
the nation between religious majority versus minority.
Week 2. The role of Sharia: an ‘Islamic state’ and ‘Green Islam’
Way of reasoning, used by all “toolkit”
Three angles
● Slogan:
Not in depth understanding but rather as an entity — “a notion that is conceived by muslims
as good in itself”
● Classical Law:
Emergence of Islamic empire 8th c AD (1st c AH) “empire in name of Islam, in accordance to
the rules of Islam” - but what are the rules?
Shari’a is the ‘path’ to the water well. It is the name for all religious laws (e.g. also christian
Shari’a).
Sources for Shari’a:
1. Quran “word of God” but only 6% can be considered a rule (mainly about family law)
— His Word is not comprehensive law
2. Sunna - more to be found here
“How to find God’s shari’a?” Assumption - 2 sacred sources do not state but rather contain
God’s law.
Finding Shari’a: ijtihad - the intellectual effort to find the rules (in the sources). This created
the following process: the rules of shari’a derived from two sources through methods of
reasoning. But how?
Golden Age (8-9th c AD) rationalists vs traditionalists also happened in law. They came to a
compromise: Rules of shari’a derived from two sources through two methods - ijma
(consensus) and qiyas (analogy) — legal science was developed: fiqh
Example is: alcohol - consensus of chronological explanation + date wine as analogy for any
intoxicant
Example of fiqh: shaking hands. Islamic legal science is not focussed on the rule but rather
finding the rule that fits the particular time and circumstance.
Fiqh and ‘ulama = legal scholarship
Every scholar would write a book, aka islamic legal scholarship which did not contain law as
we know it but rather descriptions of “trying to find God’s truth” crazy examples to see if the
rule still works for that.
Schools of law: these agreed on what books were more relevant etc. They became regional.
They contradict each other but don’t conflict with each other “I think this bla bla bla, but God
knows better” aka we’re all fallible people but as long as you truthfully practice ijtihad…
● Sunni schools: Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafi’i
● Shi’a schools: Ismaili, Jafari, Zaidi, Other
● Other: Ibadi
What rules are covered by Shari’a? Siyasa - remaining rules that you need to rule society
that are not found in Quran, Sunna nor Fiqh. Aka is decided by the ruler, as long as they do
not contradict Quran, Sunna and Fiqh.
3
