Islamism is not Bida
Reader comment on item: Responding to Joshua Muravchik about "Moderate Islamists"

Submitted by Archimedes2 (Canada), Jul 10, 2008 at 12:52

I agree with practically everything you write, Daniel. And I agree with your understanding of "moderate Islam" and "moderate muslims".

I consider myself fortunate to have some very good friends who are devout muslims and who fit into this category. Some american war heroes fit into this category. Etc. But I do not agree that Islamism is "bida", or an innovation, in Islam. Of all the things you hold with respect to Islam, this is the weakest link. Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning on this point.

Now, it is quite likely supportable to say that the current world-wide movement that goes by that name is itself an innovation, and embodies the Islamist philosophy in ways that do not reflect a centuries-old provenance. However, as the writings of Al-Banna, Qutb and others make clear, the basic ideas, goals and practices of this modern movement are no more and no less than 1400-year-old core elements of Islam.

While the term "Islamism" and the current political movement, as embodied by the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb'ut al Tahrir and other organizations, came about in the 20th century and so are not "old" in Islamic terms, the core philosophies and practices of Islamism have an old, impeccable, Islamic provenance. Mohammed was the first Islamist. His teachings, his life and his legacy as found in Qur'an, Hadith and Sunna are Islamist to the core. Islamism is Islamic to the core.

It is a common-sense application of basic principals of Islamic imperialism, and has been articulated in many ways, but yet without deviating from the core principals of Islamism, for 1400 years, by leading Islamic scholars throughout the history of Islam. To read the teachings of modern Islamists is hardly any different than reading their counterparts of the 7th, 10, 14th or 18th Centuries.

The Christian organization Youth For Christ has a slogan, "Anchored to the Rock; geared to the times". Its purpose is to express that, while addressing the Christian faith through very modern forms, means and methodogies, it is faithful to the 2000 year old tradition and the teachings of Jesus ("the Rock"). This is precisely analogous to the approach of modern Islamism. There is nothing "bida"-ish about it at all.

The Ikhwan might as well have the slogan: "Scrupulously faithful to the Prophet and his Sunna; contemporary to the core". Thank God that there are streams of Islam, and pious muslims, who ignore what we call the "Islamist stream"and live peaceful lives, tolerant of those who follow other creeds. There is evidence of ongoing significant numbers of such muslims throughout the last 1400 years, more in some places and times than in others. But the Islamist, expansionist, aggressive, and often violent core has always been dominant.

For a scholar of your calibre to say otherwise cannot be a matter of ignorance. I regard it as an unhelpful fabrication. Although I deeply respect you and almost everything you represent, I come away shaking my head at this statement.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Daniel Pipes replies:

See my article, "Jihad through History," for an example of how Islamist interpretations can rightly be called bid`a.