lol i don't live in the khalij I was there for 6 months on fellowship for an American university. I have no desire to live in the khalij either. My critiques of Islamism far pre-date my time in the khalij, and my commitment to Islamic statecraft does as well
Section 4.16 of the ADAMS Center bylaws states that:
“ADAMS maintains an excellent relationship with the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of State, and various state and local law enforcement agencies.”
Thank you special agent ustadh Yacoob for your service via this Substack article.
It might help to begin by defining what an ‘Islamist’ is and whether it’s a coherent/useful category. The article feels uncompelling because it speaks too broadly and too authoritatively about movements that emerged in different contexts with a wide variety of goals and wildly different attitudes to social/political change. As a result, the analysis is either too abstract or just contradictory.
Much of the critique isn’t an indictment of Islamists but rather describes broader Muslim political tendencies. State capture – however broadly defined – is hardly limited to ‘Islamist’ movements. Nearly every major group within the Umma has maintained this obsession. One could point to a less sophisticated neotraditionalist obsession with proximity to power, such as their legitimation of the colonial-era ‘State Mufti’ positions or the contemporary examples of religious figures (including Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Bouti and Ali Gomaa abroad, and Hamza Yusuf or Imam Majid locally) who have cultivated relationships with authoritarian (even genocidal) regimes for the false promise of shaping public morality. The obsession with focusing on ‘Islamist’ engagement with state power stems from a superficial reading of Wael Hallaq’s The Impossible State. The book has served as an epistemic cudgel deployed against ‘Islamists’ without recognizing that the neotraditionalist flirtation with the modern state is so patently obvious that it's hardly analytically useful for Hallaq’s concerns (although he does indict them throughout his Shari’a).
The article attempts to ideologically straitjacket Islamist thinkers through phrases like “leveraging Salafism,” “fixed and rigid” interpretations of Islam, or by contrasting ‘Islamists’ with ‘ulama. I want to focus especially on that last distinction since that’s the inquiry you pursue. There are two main criticisms of this trope.
First, the binary itself doesn’t withstand basic scrutiny. It is difficult to group thinkers as different as Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda, Shaykh Mustafa al-Zarqa, or Shaykh Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani and regard them as “Salafi”, “rigid”, or “unlearned in the tradition.” These thinkers differed greatly in their scholarly instruction, their hermeneutical approaches to the Islamic tradition, and their own political commitments. We should absolutely critique aspects of their intellectual and political projects, but serious critique requires engaging them on their own terms rather than dismissing them through broad labels. One of our deeper problems as an Umma is our critical dismissiveness and our inability to take thinkers seriously enough to debate, modify, and further develop their contributions.
Second, the article’s exclusive focus on ‘ulama reflects a myopic understanding of Islamic history and social change. It locates social change almost exclusively on Islamic scholarly authority and presupposes that our collective condition is purely a problem of categorization and conceptualization. Islam is a civilizational project that invites scholars, intellectuals, activists, poets, economists, statesmen, Mujahidin, and others from a wide variety of backgrounds to contribute productively. This is a much longer conversation, but someone familiar with Iqbal's thought should immediately recognize why a tendency to characterize someone like Qutb as an unlearned iconoclastic reformist doesn’t warrant serious engagement.
There’s a lot more mentioned that feels worthy of reconsidering (i.e., the claims that their movements failed to represent the masses notwithstanding their immense popularity in the Islamization of masses & institution-building globally). I’d advise more serious engagement with these thinkers before passing collective judgments on them. There’s a great deal of introspection from these movements themselves/thinkers adjacent to these movements that are worth learning from. I don’t know if I’d find the takes popularized by Western high-profile Imams to be particularly helpful for these civilizational questions. I’d also advise reconsidering the limitations of our existing vocabulary to recognize why we might inadvertently be repeating securitized/Eurocentric critiques. May Allah guide us to the truth and knowledge that benefits.
I read your comment, then read my piece again, then read your comment again, then wondered who you were actually engaging - because it's obviously not me.
To be fair, almost all of the points you raised in the article are basically tropes that someone like Sh. Yasir Qadhi has been saying for decades, so it might feel like I'm talking past you.
I haven't heard a single think Yasir Qadhi says on the topic because I find almost nothing beneficial in anything he says. I'll give you a few examples of where you're talking past me:
1. I have visceral physiological reactions when anyone even mentions Hallaq let alone builds on him
2. I am colleagues and friends with one of Shaykh Abd al-Fattah's grandsons and was trained by someone who studied under al-Zarqa, rahimahumallah. I've found their works highly beneficial in fiqh, though Shaykh Abd al-Fattah's hadith focus is not my cup of tea in the hanafi school
3. I didn't focus on the ulama at all in this piece, for whom I have a whole 'nother slew of critiques. I mentioned the general (not total) tension between the islamiyyun and their inheritance of rigidity of Islamic thought and law married to a sola scriptura approach in many (not all - I specifically made this caveat in the piece because of the Syrians and their highly nuanced modes of engagement with the tradition) of their thinkers.
4. My point about failing to mobilize the masses had little to do with their islamization. The very point is that convincing a person that Islam is important and central is not enough for a truly Islamic politics. One first needs to build a methodology of how Islam - using the full width and breadth of the intellectual heritage (I hate the word tradition) - can be adapted to modern realities in highly pragmatic and circumstantially aware ways (something Shaykh Mustafa (RA) was a genius at).
5. While I dislike Qutb, it's not because he wasn't an Alim. The Ulama were not, are not, and will never be the primary movers and shakers of Muslim society. My fixation on Iqbal is not detracted by the fact that he wasn't an alim. My dislike of Qutb is because of my dislike of basic marxist concepts around society and ideology, which Qutb incorporates into his own islamist thinking.
There's a lot more to be said, but I think this suffices to say that I am very much not repeating Yasir Qadhi's takes. I personally don't have a problem with modern state structures - minus nationalism - and don't see Hallaq's contributions as at all useful (to be fair I don't know if that's what YQ builds on, because i've never heard a YQ lecture in my life).
Also, don't even get me started on the neo-trads, God help us all.
Compare Lenin's What Is To Be Done to Qutb's Ma'alim fi al-Tariq. Same basic structure of revolution, ideology, state power, etc. Qutb even calls the muslim movement a “tali'ah" (vanguard). But the parallels are very obvious
Islamism is an imperfect moniker for a slew of disparate islamic political movements from the early 20th century onwards. The khawarij killed Imam Ali (RA). I'm not sure what's even remotely similar.
Politics is a part of islam. There is no "Separation of church and state" in our deen. Therefore, what would the ideal movement look like? Would it be a movement that calls for a holistic revival vs one that focuses just on the political, spiritual, or economic portion of Islam?
Success comes from Allah and He grants it to whom he wills and He withholds it from whom He wills. Yes, we make effort to the best of our abilities, but it is always Allah Who determines the outcome of those efforts. We may offer materialist explanations of why something did not take place the way that we planned, but the real explanation is that Allah did not ordain it to happen.
I followed you initially for Iqbal content kinda weird how you move to the Khaleej and make your mission now to attack the brotherhood.
lol i don't live in the khalij I was there for 6 months on fellowship for an American university. I have no desire to live in the khalij either. My critiques of Islamism far pre-date my time in the khalij, and my commitment to Islamic statecraft does as well
Section 4.16 of the ADAMS Center bylaws states that:
“ADAMS maintains an excellent relationship with the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of State, and various state and local law enforcement agencies.”
Thank you special agent ustadh Yacoob for your service via this Substack article.
It might help to begin by defining what an ‘Islamist’ is and whether it’s a coherent/useful category. The article feels uncompelling because it speaks too broadly and too authoritatively about movements that emerged in different contexts with a wide variety of goals and wildly different attitudes to social/political change. As a result, the analysis is either too abstract or just contradictory.
Much of the critique isn’t an indictment of Islamists but rather describes broader Muslim political tendencies. State capture – however broadly defined – is hardly limited to ‘Islamist’ movements. Nearly every major group within the Umma has maintained this obsession. One could point to a less sophisticated neotraditionalist obsession with proximity to power, such as their legitimation of the colonial-era ‘State Mufti’ positions or the contemporary examples of religious figures (including Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Bouti and Ali Gomaa abroad, and Hamza Yusuf or Imam Majid locally) who have cultivated relationships with authoritarian (even genocidal) regimes for the false promise of shaping public morality. The obsession with focusing on ‘Islamist’ engagement with state power stems from a superficial reading of Wael Hallaq’s The Impossible State. The book has served as an epistemic cudgel deployed against ‘Islamists’ without recognizing that the neotraditionalist flirtation with the modern state is so patently obvious that it's hardly analytically useful for Hallaq’s concerns (although he does indict them throughout his Shari’a).
The article attempts to ideologically straitjacket Islamist thinkers through phrases like “leveraging Salafism,” “fixed and rigid” interpretations of Islam, or by contrasting ‘Islamists’ with ‘ulama. I want to focus especially on that last distinction since that’s the inquiry you pursue. There are two main criticisms of this trope.
First, the binary itself doesn’t withstand basic scrutiny. It is difficult to group thinkers as different as Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda, Shaykh Mustafa al-Zarqa, or Shaykh Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani and regard them as “Salafi”, “rigid”, or “unlearned in the tradition.” These thinkers differed greatly in their scholarly instruction, their hermeneutical approaches to the Islamic tradition, and their own political commitments. We should absolutely critique aspects of their intellectual and political projects, but serious critique requires engaging them on their own terms rather than dismissing them through broad labels. One of our deeper problems as an Umma is our critical dismissiveness and our inability to take thinkers seriously enough to debate, modify, and further develop their contributions.
Second, the article’s exclusive focus on ‘ulama reflects a myopic understanding of Islamic history and social change. It locates social change almost exclusively on Islamic scholarly authority and presupposes that our collective condition is purely a problem of categorization and conceptualization. Islam is a civilizational project that invites scholars, intellectuals, activists, poets, economists, statesmen, Mujahidin, and others from a wide variety of backgrounds to contribute productively. This is a much longer conversation, but someone familiar with Iqbal's thought should immediately recognize why a tendency to characterize someone like Qutb as an unlearned iconoclastic reformist doesn’t warrant serious engagement.
There’s a lot more mentioned that feels worthy of reconsidering (i.e., the claims that their movements failed to represent the masses notwithstanding their immense popularity in the Islamization of masses & institution-building globally). I’d advise more serious engagement with these thinkers before passing collective judgments on them. There’s a great deal of introspection from these movements themselves/thinkers adjacent to these movements that are worth learning from. I don’t know if I’d find the takes popularized by Western high-profile Imams to be particularly helpful for these civilizational questions. I’d also advise reconsidering the limitations of our existing vocabulary to recognize why we might inadvertently be repeating securitized/Eurocentric critiques. May Allah guide us to the truth and knowledge that benefits.
I read your comment, then read my piece again, then read your comment again, then wondered who you were actually engaging - because it's obviously not me.
Is this really your response to the only person who seriously engaged with the nonsense you’re rambling about? LMAO
To be fair, almost all of the points you raised in the article are basically tropes that someone like Sh. Yasir Qadhi has been saying for decades, so it might feel like I'm talking past you.
I haven't heard a single think Yasir Qadhi says on the topic because I find almost nothing beneficial in anything he says. I'll give you a few examples of where you're talking past me:
1. I have visceral physiological reactions when anyone even mentions Hallaq let alone builds on him
2. I am colleagues and friends with one of Shaykh Abd al-Fattah's grandsons and was trained by someone who studied under al-Zarqa, rahimahumallah. I've found their works highly beneficial in fiqh, though Shaykh Abd al-Fattah's hadith focus is not my cup of tea in the hanafi school
3. I didn't focus on the ulama at all in this piece, for whom I have a whole 'nother slew of critiques. I mentioned the general (not total) tension between the islamiyyun and their inheritance of rigidity of Islamic thought and law married to a sola scriptura approach in many (not all - I specifically made this caveat in the piece because of the Syrians and their highly nuanced modes of engagement with the tradition) of their thinkers.
4. My point about failing to mobilize the masses had little to do with their islamization. The very point is that convincing a person that Islam is important and central is not enough for a truly Islamic politics. One first needs to build a methodology of how Islam - using the full width and breadth of the intellectual heritage (I hate the word tradition) - can be adapted to modern realities in highly pragmatic and circumstantially aware ways (something Shaykh Mustafa (RA) was a genius at).
5. While I dislike Qutb, it's not because he wasn't an Alim. The Ulama were not, are not, and will never be the primary movers and shakers of Muslim society. My fixation on Iqbal is not detracted by the fact that he wasn't an alim. My dislike of Qutb is because of my dislike of basic marxist concepts around society and ideology, which Qutb incorporates into his own islamist thinking.
There's a lot more to be said, but I think this suffices to say that I am very much not repeating Yasir Qadhi's takes. I personally don't have a problem with modern state structures - minus nationalism - and don't see Hallaq's contributions as at all useful (to be fair I don't know if that's what YQ builds on, because i've never heard a YQ lecture in my life).
Also, don't even get me started on the neo-trads, God help us all.
Can you point to the Marxist concepts that Qutb employs in his writings and problematize them for us? Or at least a citation or a quote?
Compare Lenin's What Is To Be Done to Qutb's Ma'alim fi al-Tariq. Same basic structure of revolution, ideology, state power, etc. Qutb even calls the muslim movement a “tali'ah" (vanguard). But the parallels are very obvious
Is an Islamist a Kharaji? If not, how do they differ?
Islamism is an imperfect moniker for a slew of disparate islamic political movements from the early 20th century onwards. The khawarij killed Imam Ali (RA). I'm not sure what's even remotely similar.
So, the Khawarij no longer exist?
Politics is a part of islam. There is no "Separation of church and state" in our deen. Therefore, what would the ideal movement look like? Would it be a movement that calls for a holistic revival vs one that focuses just on the political, spiritual, or economic portion of Islam?
Maybe we should think about some solutions???
Maybe we should look inward/within like how the Renaissance did???
Perhaps?!?!
Woa!!!
Success comes from Allah and He grants it to whom he wills and He withholds it from whom He wills. Yes, we make effort to the best of our abilities, but it is always Allah Who determines the outcome of those efforts. We may offer materialist explanations of why something did not take place the way that we planned, but the real explanation is that Allah did not ordain it to happen.