Islamists who seek to establish Islam often adopt Marxist theory in order to defend Islam against liberalism. In doing so, however, they can fall into the very trap of Modernity they claim to oppose. Marxism is not an anti-modern theory; rather, it represents a different aspect of Modernity itself.

But how is this so?

Modernity is not exclusively the property of capitalism or liberalism. Rather, it encompasses everything that is constructed through human reasoning in a way that reshapes human life independently of the divine order, religion, and revealed guidance. Therefore, if liberalism is a manifestation of Modernity, Marxist theory is also a manifestation of Modernity. It offers an alternative, anti-capitalist conception of human life while still largely ignoring God, religion, and the traditional divine order.

From this perspective, Marxism, capitalism, and liberalism are not fundamentally different when viewed from the religious perspective. They may oppose one another politically, economically, and ideologically, but they remain on the same plane insofar as they organize human life primarily through humanly constructed systems rather than through divine revelation and traditional religious order.

Thus, when Islamists attack liberalism through Marxist theory, they can, paradoxically, become influenced by Marxist Modernity itself.

How does this happen?

They take the Marxist revolutionary theory of politics and attempt to make it Islamic by placing it within an Islamic revolutionary framework. In doing so, they replace the traditional divine framework with a modern ideological framework, reducing Islamic values and perspectives to the categories of modern political theory, even sometimes, they interprete life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) from a political point of view, as if Islam is not a divine religion, but rather a political movements of GOD!!!

But Islam has its own political goals, as well as its own conditions concerning the human soul and the formation of the individual. Revolutionary theory—whether liberal or Marxist—does not offer what Islam offers. Both are primarily concerned with the organization of worldly life through humanly constructed political propositions.

Therefore, when Islamists adopt Marxist revolutionary theory of society, or its revolutionary framework for seizing political power, they are effectively reducing Islam to a modern political movement. They overlook the fact that revolutionary theory does not speak of divinity, God, the purification of the soul, or man's ultimate purpose. It is fundamentally a worldly political proposition that seeks to reorganize society through human action, sometimes placing man and his political will in the position that traditionally belongs to divine authority.

When Islam is accepted in this form as an ideology, it becomes a conception of Islam that is largely unknown to the traditional Islamic epistemological framework—a conception constructed through modern, man-made ideological categories.

For this reason, revolutionary Islamists often speak extensively about political movements, political propositions, the welfare state, and, in some cases, the establishment of the Khilafah. Yet they may say comparatively little about ʿilm, the knowledge of the Dīn, the purification of the soul, taṣawwuf, nearness to Allah, and the traditional transmission and learning of religious knowledge.

Yet these are not secondary matters. ʿIlm, knowledge of the Dīn, purification of the soul, taṣawwuf, and the traditional learning of Islam are fundamental to the formation of the Muslim individual and community. They are necessary foundations for any genuine Islamic activity, including political activity. Sometimes spiritual, intellectual, and political concerns can certainly go together. The point is not to deny political activity, but to reject the reduction of Islam to political activity.

Islam has its own way of establishing itself, rooted in revelation, knowledge, spiritual purification, and the transformation of the human being. It cannot simply be defended against Modernity by adopting Modernity's own propositions and political frameworks.

To defend Islam against Modernity by accepting the premises of Modernity is therefore not a victory over Modernity. It may instead become another path of deviation.

Critics of ‘Ilm al-Kalam frequently raise a common objection: that it is merely borrowed Greek wisdom. Yet the reality remains that a universal religion and universal knowledge can never be reduced to partisan or localized interests. Those who dismiss ‘Ilm al-Kalam simply because of its Greek associations would instantly crumble before even the most elementary logical inquiry.

The fundamental truth is that Plato and Aristotle articulated certain questions that constitute universal truths for human civilization. Much like the sun, which belongs equally to all traditions and all mankind, these metaphysical inquiries possess a truly cosmic relevance—and, as will be demonstrated, they are directly bound to the doctrine of Tawhid (Divine Unity).

Islam is not the exclusive property of Muslims; rather, it was revealed by God for the whole of humanity. It is precisely for this reason that Da‘wah (the call to Truth) forms an integral part of its principle. Similarly, the Qur’an was not sent down solely for those who already believe, but was meant to be conveyed to all of mankind, leading them back to the orientation of Tawhid.

Among the foundational doctrines addressed by Plato and Aristotle is that of Realism—the principle that beyond the realm of particularities lies a Universal Existence. Consider, for instance, the presence of life across all living beings. If we examine this hierarchically, humans exist as a specific creature distinguished by the faculty of rationality—a characteristic that sets them apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Thus, humanity as a whole constitutes a Universal Reality defined by this unique intellective nature.

In the same manner, the shared essential attributes of each species give rise to distinct levels of reality. And since all such creatures share in the principle of life, they collectively form a higher order of reality that stands clearly distinguished from that of inanimate matter.

This constitutes one of the central pillars of Platonic and Aristotelian Realism.

Those who accuse Muslims of merely indulging in Greek wisdom fail to comprehend the very nature of knowledge itself. Just as Islam is universal and the Qur'an is universal, these metaphysical inquiries are equally present across all traditions. If one were to reject this Realism simply because it was articulated by the Greeks, one would be left with no intellectual means to define Tawhid (Divine Unity), nor any path to arrive at the transcendent Unity of the Creator. For the doctrine of Divine Unity existed long before the advent of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. The Prophet ﷺ was the final link in that chain of primordial Truth, bringing to ultimate completion the cycle of Prophethood and Revelation that began with Adam (peace be upon him).

Thus, these fundamental questions exist universally, continuously drawing humanity toward the singular Unity of the Creator—a function intrinsic to Realism. For Realism systematically links the particular to the universal, unifying all existence into a coherent hierarchy; and this movement toward absolute unity is the very essence of Tawhid.

Tawhid signifies Unity—yet why Unity? The Creator is One, but this truth is by no means confined merely to the domain of theology; it holds equally true on the metaphysical and existential plane. In the absolute Presence of the Creator’s Existence, no other existence truly stands; hence, He is One in an existential sense as well. Because creation remains perpetually dependent upon Him at every instant, what ultimate weight or independent reality can the existence of the created world possess when set against the Supreme Being?

If one rejects Realism—dismissing it under the pretext of its Greek origin—and attempts an alternative path, one is left only with Conceptualism and Empiricism, both of which arose in opposition to Realism. The profound flaw in both positions, however, is their intrinsic inability to ascend to the doctrine of Divine Unity.

Conceptualism reduces universal realities to mere mental abstractions devoid of objective reality, while Empiricism restricts reality entirely to the sensible world. Because neither school recognizes anything objective beyond human concepts or empirical phenomena, both remain inextricably trapped within the realm of multiplicity—that is to say, bound entirely to the lower, horizontal plane of cosmic existence.

By remaining trapped within the limits of this earthly domain, these perspectives inevitably devolved into subjectivity—effectively turning the temporal world into their ultimate reality, their pseudo-paradise. One now begins to comprehend why Islamic thinkers, from Ibn Sina to Shah Waliullah Dehlawi, found it necessary to integrate and reformulate Greek philosophy. They recognized that outside the framework of Realism, one cannot attain Tawhid or Principle Unity; one is left only with multiplicity and fragmentariness—the very antithesis of Divine Unity. And it is precisely at this point of fragmentation that Western thought has come to a standstill.

It was from this same critical impulse—viewing it merely as a foreign Greek import—that Ibn Taymiyyah formulated his formidable polemics against Realism. Those who have examined his Dar’ Ta‘arud know that the entirety of its argument rests implicitly upon Conceptualism and Empiricism. Furthermore, Conceptualism and Empiricism inherently foster and reflect the tendencies of Nominalism—and remarkably, he sought to defend these very positions through logical discourse.

This fundamental limitation explains why Ibn Taymiyyah’s Dar’ Ta‘arud failed to exert a lasting influence or achieve widespread acceptance within the mainstream of Islamic intellectual tradition. In its denial of objective universals, it failed to define any transcendent Objective Reality, ultimately confusing the domain of dogmatic theology with that of pure metaphysics.

Those who have grasped this distinction will now understand that modern Western civilization rests squarely upon these three interconnected philosophical errors: Conceptualism and Empiricism, both of which inevitably converge into Nominalism. Through the pervasive influence of Nominalism, mankind has been led away from Transcendent Objective Truth, coming instead to treat purely subjective reality as the sole criterion of existence. Within this framework, the Divine ceases to be recognized as Supreme Reality and is reduced to a mere mental concept. Though Conceptualism, Empiricism, and Nominalism manifest with subtle differences, they share a common impulse—a rigid, literalist reductionism that stripped Western thought of its transcendent dimension.

This modern subjectivism is precisely the root cause of the current condition of Western civilization. Metaphysically, subjectivism signifies nothing less than the substitution of man into the place of the Divine—or, viewed from another angle, the total oblivion of the Creator in favor of an absolute absorption in temporal existence.

Had Western civilization truly preserved the search for Objective Reality as envisioned in the higher traditions of Plato and Aristotle, the rise of modern Liberalism and its accompanying moral relativity would have been impossible. Liberalism flourished precisely because Transcendent Objective Reality was erased and replaced by individual subjectivism. While Objective Reality converges upon a single Supreme Principle—which is the very essence of Tawhid or Divine Unity—subjectivism elevates multiplicity and fragmentation as the supreme norm.

It is for this reason that those deeply trained in traditional metaphysics—whether Ibn Sina, Al-Ghazali, or Shah Waliullah Dehlawi—consistently operated within these universal realist frameworks. They recognized that these truths were never the private inventions of Plato or Aristotle, but rather reflected a primordial, universal knowledge that pre-dated them and belongs to the eternal heritage of mankind.

As Imam Al-Ghazali pointed out long ago, the wisdom associated with the Greeks was not of their own personal invention; rather, it was transmitted to them through the chain of prophetic heritage. Just as Idris (peace be upon him) brought the knowledge of the pen, and David (peace be upon him) was granted the art of crafting iron armor, every essential domain of knowledge was bestowed upon humanity through one Prophet or Messenger or another—taught as universal gifts for the whole of mankind. Furthermore, long before the Western "Enlightenment," it was from the Islamic world itself that the West derived its intellectual and scientific foundations.

These are universal truths. The essential question, however, is whether an individual possesses the intellectual capacity and spiritual aptitude to perceive and comprehend them. For God grants true ‘Ilm (Knowledge) only to the soul that harbors a genuine thirst and the inner readiness to receive it. Where the very foundations of logic and metaphysical understanding are absent, the study of Kalam cannot possibly bear fruit.

Over the past few installments, we have examined the contagion of modernity that has spread within the Muslim world, and we believe that its essential features have been presented with sufficient clarity. Yet one important point still appears to remain obscure for many readers: the concept of ideology as understood from the standpoint of modernity itself. For some, it is still unclear why an ideal or ideology is invariably confined within the framework of modernity, and how it ultimately imprisons the individual within the limits of his own autonomous judgment and reasoning, instead of orienting him toward the Cosmic Order and his existential relation with Allah.

Before proceeding further, we must first understand that ideology does not merely confine a person to the boundaries of his own rational faculties. More fundamentally, it transfers the entirety of his intellectual and practical activity into a plane that is itself conditioned and circumscribed by the framework of modernity. In what follows, we shall present several illustrations to make this point more evident. They will demonstrate how the advocates of ideology and fundamentalism may sincerely claim to represent Tradition, while the very spirit animating those claims remains profoundly modern—even though they themselves are often unaware of this reality.

Subscribe now

In the previous three parts of this series, I have discussed this matter at length, and there is little need to repeat those arguments here. Our concern, therefore, will be more narrowly focused: to examine the extent of the correspondence between pseudo-traditionalism and pseudo-fundamentalism, and to show how both are, in reality, merely the “traditional” expressions of modernity. It is for this reason that we have designated their adherents as pseudo-traditionalists.

The Nature of Modern Political Revolution

Our discussion is not concerned with the currents and varieties of modernity. Rather, we shall discuss, in a general manner, how modernity has led Islam towards Islamism, and how it has transformed the traditional current into Traditionalism through a new interpretation of religion. More particularly, it is the political tendency and mentality that constitute the subject of our discussion.

It is clear to all of us that, since the French Revolution, religion has been almost entirely removed from the social and political life of the West, and has been replaced by modernity. Modernity is a historical condition of the Western world (although the Westerners themselves regard modernity as a universal condition, which is in reality nothing but the imposition of their own history upon others—that is to say, a historical imposition). Modernity, moreover, possesses various branches and ramifications. Liberalism is its political philosophy; secularism concerns itself with religion and the public sphere; ideology is its political outlook; while capitalism constitutes its economic system.

Communism, although it presents itself differently, nevertheless remains an important counter-part of modernity. Whatever one may think of any of the above manifestations, in every case it is the people who are regarded as supreme—for the people and by the people. Thus, no higher authority is retained as the objective principle; rather, the lowest level is elevated to the highest rank. (To express it in philosophical language, multiplicity has been placed in the position of sovereignty, whereas multiplicity can never be the source.) The difference is merely that two persons perceive the same thing from two different perspectives.

Liberalism consists of certain moral and ethical concepts formulated through man’s own limited and restricted knowledge and reason, whereby human morality, values, and conduct have been substituted for the Divine Law, sacred teaching, and revealed ethics by standards derived solely from the human mind.

Thus, here again, transcendental Truth and Divine Revelation are set aside, while the limits and nature of moral conduct are determined according to criteria produced by human reason itself. The real significance of this is that man has placed himself in the position that belongs to the Creator.

Once, through this revolution, man denies a Reality greater than his own individual existence, he thereby confines himself to the outward world, which is the lowest degree of manifestation within creation—that which is sensible, measurable, and terrestrial.

In placing himself in the position of the Creator, man simultaneously denies his supra-terrestrial mode of existence, while imagining that this earthly life alone is both the first and the last reality. Yet this mortal condition belongs only to the lowest degree of existence, above which there remain higher cosmic orders and modes of life.

Consequently, by denying transcendental Truth and the metaphysical state, and by disregarding man’s true position within the Universe, this outward, sensible, and worldly existence comes to be regarded as the only “life” there is.

Once this worldly life comes to be regarded as the final end, various political propositions inevitably arise for the purpose of making this worldly existence more “advanced” or “progressive.” For politics is precisely that domain in which the whole of man’s moral and ethical conduct can be redefined in opposition to transcendental and metaphysical Truth.

It is for this reason that secularism, liberalism, communism, and socialism emerged as different formulations within a Western society that had severed itself from the Creator. Consequently, the political sphere constitutes the fundamental truth of liberalism and modernity; it is that which governs, redefines, and continually reshapes worldly existence by giving different forms and expressions to these human-generated ethics.

For whereas, in a traditional religious society, moral and ethical conduct was defined through Divine Guidance, Wisdom, and Prophecy—whose source lay entirely in transcendental knowledge—it has now been replaced by standards and definitions produced by the human intellect itself, which is necessarily incomplete.

In other words, where it belongs to the Infinite to define the finite, the finite now seeks to define the Infinite. Such an inversion is, by its very nature, irrational.

Thus, whereas in the traditional conception the centre of man’s intellectual horizon was the Creator, Divinity, and the values and principles derived from Divine Revelation, the collapse of the traditional order and the rise of modernity have displaced this centre and relocated it within the individual and his own confined particular being—that is to say, within individuality and the self.

In metaphysical terms, where formerly Divinity—or the Creator—was recognized as the Ultimate Source and the Central Principle, the Origin and Cause of all things, that Creator has now been replaced by creation itself. In other words, the Absolute has been replaced by the relative, and the Infinite has been displaced by the finite.

Thus, through modernity, man has rejected the Absolute and become lost within the realm of relative existence. This, in essence, is modernity: a condition in which there is no longer any supreme Transcendental Truth or Higher Principle, but where human individuality itself comes to function as the ultimate, or absolute, truth.

Once the very notion of transcendental knowledge and Divine Guidance has disappeared, worldly existence remains, for them, the highest horizon, and politics comes to be regarded as its supreme expression. For, whatever else may be said, the humanly constructed ethical order of modernity recognizes the State as its highest culmination, and political activity as the fundamental value of human life. The highest authority, in this perspective, is nothing other than collectively constructed human rules. There is no Transcendental Truth, no metaphysical Principle standing above the judgments and standards of the human mind; there is no Creator or Divinity by which human morality is defined. Within such a perspective, there is no real place for the Creator, for Transcendental Truth, or for metaphysical Reality. And even where these are nominally acknowledged, they remain vague, inaccessible, and devoid of any governing function.

For this reason, various political and economic propositions emerged within Western society, all of which came to be described as “revolutions.” The French Revolution, liberalism, communism, capitalism, and socialism are all revolutions of this kind. Their character is overwhelmingly political. The spirituality of religion and the spiritual dimension of man find no real place within these modern ideological revolutions. It is therefore political revolution that constitutes the fundamental point of their entire outlook.

This is the true nature of political revolution. It is an order in which there is no Divine Law, no Divine Guidance or Wisdom, no prophetic ethical conduct. Instead, everything it proposes consists of humanly constructed ethical rules, formulated by individuals detached from the Supreme Principle. These rules possess no connection with the higher order of reality and remain confined, metaphysically, to the lowest degree of manifestation. It is precisely this absence of any transcendent foundation that constitutes the real character of political revolution.

This is so because political revolution itself has come to be regarded as the highest end of human existence. In the absence of Divine Guidance, prophetic ethical conduct, Divine Revelation, and Divine Wisdom, there remains no prior knowledge by which the personal, social, and political ethics of mankind may be defined. Consequently, the absence of Divine Guidance has trapped Western society into regarding political revolution as the highest summit of human aspiration.

Consequently, what characterizes them is not spirituality but modernity; not the spiritual order, but matter and materialism—a worldview confined to the earthly domain (earth-bound). It is for this reason that they are described as materialists. Unfortunately, many contemporary Islamists have also come to operate within this same materialistic framework.

From our discussion thus far, it should now be evident that wherever Divine Revelation, Divine Wisdom, and Divine Guidance are absent, the highest aspiration inevitably becomes political revolution. Political revolution itself becomes their ideal. Beyond it, they possess nothing capable of being offered as a higher vision of civilization. Whatever they do offer remains centred upon the individual and the self; the very notion of a reality beyond the self—a Transcendental Truth—has effectively disappeared.

Our discussion will now turn to how this political revolution, which in the modern West has assumed the place once occupied by Absolute Truth, metaphysical Reality, and Divine Guidance as the supreme authority, began to influence Muslim thought following the collapse of the Caliphate. More precisely, we shall examine how it gradually transformed the traditional framework into a modern ideological one—how it sought to replace the fundamental orientation of Muslims with the ideal of political revolution. It is this phenomenon that may properly be called Islamism, but never Islam.

Confusion in Islamic Interpretation

In the previous installments, we made it clear how the Ikhwān became confused in attempting to reconcile themselves with the political institutions of modernity, and how, from within their own ranks, another current of non-democratic Islamists eventually emerged. Although they advocated the same vision of an Islamic revolution, they differed in their method, preferring a non-democratic and armed approach.

There exist a number of intellectual differences between democratic and non-democratic Islamists. These differences, however, are fundamentally centred upon the question of power: how political authority is to be attained and by what means Islam is to be established. It is from these disagreements that the division between the two groups arose, and from this point their other doctrinal and methodological differences began to develop.

Now, if one were to ask either of these groups, “What is the purpose of your life?” the answer commonly given would be: to establish an Islamic Caliphate and an Islamic system of governance within society. At the same time, they regard this as their ideal.

The problem, however, is that Allah the Exalted created and sent man into this world for the purpose of worship. This is the primary purpose of human existence. Allah did not send mankind to establish a political order or a political system, as the modern West has come to imagine through its doctrine of revolution, according to which the highest summit of human civilization consists in political and economic liberation.

At this point, we must understand that when both democratic and non-democratic Islamists, following the collapse of the Caliphate, made the re-establishment of a political order into their ideal, they had already fallen into the trap of modernity. For the political revolution of the modern West is itself the consequence of the denial—or absence—of Transcendental Truth, metaphysical principles, Divine Law, and Divine Guidance. When Muslims adopt this same political revolutionary framework, they are, in reality, imposing upon themselves the historical condition of the West, while neglecting, out of ignorance, the continuity of Divine Guidance and the traditional order. (This has already been discussed above.)

It is precisely here that the confusion begins. Instead of reviving the traditional current of Islam, they become entangled in the framework of modernity. Democratic Islamists gradually fall into this error and, over time, begin compromising various acts of worship (ʿibādah), as well as the rulings and conditions of the Sharīʿah, because they come to regard political power as the fundamental objective—that is, change through governance and authority.

Non-democratic Islamists, on the other hand, adopt the very same framework, namely that of the Islamic political revolution. They denounce democratic politics, yet in the end remain confined within the same political revolutionary paradigm, advancing the theory of establishing an Islamic order through revolution—a framework that is equally characteristic of Karl Marx, Lenin, and the communists.

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ, however, did not transform society or the state through political authority or the pursuit of power. Rather, he first transformed human beings; it was thereafter that Allah granted them authority. We have discussed this point in detail in the previous installments.

We must understand that an ideology, or an ideal, always refers to something particular and determinate. It is, by its very nature, limited, confined, and bounded; it possesses a definite scope, but it is neither all-embracing nor universal.

Metaphysically, that which is universal and all-encompassing is that which includes within itself Transcendental Truth and metaphysical Principles. So long as the Western world remained favourable to religion, it continued to shape its beliefs and way of life by acknowledging these two dimensions of reality. For this reason, that period is not regarded by them as the modern period. Rather, it is only after the rise of René Descartes’ subjectivism, and with Kantian philosophy beginning to cast doubt upon metaphysics and transcendentalism, that the centre shifted away from the Creator towards the world. We have already discussed this in detail in the previous installments. From that point onward, they began to redefine worldly existence entirely according to standards generated by the human mind itself.

It is here that idealism begins. For it is in this manner that the philosophers of the modern West, having rejected Divinity—the Creator—constructed modernity and the Renaissance conception from their own ideas, thereby replacing religion itself. Since these constructions proceeded from their own ideas, they became their ideals. It is from this point that idealism, together with the various other “-isms” of the modern world, emerges.

It should be noted, however, that Plato’s Idea and modern Idealism are by no means the same, and the two must never be confused. Plato’s Idea derives from the Greek word ἰδεῖν (idein), meaning “to see,” “to perceive,” or “form,” and he employed it entirely from a metaphysical point of view. For Plato, the Idea signifies the metaphysical Form—the precondition by which existence is actualized.

Modern idea and idealism, on the other hand, have become predominantly subjective, standing in complete opposition to Plato’s conception of Form as Idea. Put differently, Plato’s Form or Idea is connected with the Universal Intellect, representing the highest mode of intellect; whereas the modern ideal, precisely because it is subjective, belongs to the lowest level and is therefore connected only with the individual intellect.

We must be clear on one essential point: the particularity or determinate nature of something does not make it complete. The Infinite, by definition, cannot be confined within any limitation, whereas the finite always implies limitation. The very word ideal denotes something determinate and particular. Since an ideal is constructed from human judgment and intellectual criteria, it is necessarily limited, confined, and restricted.

Thus, when an Islamist declares that his ideal is the establishment of an Islamic system of governance, he is, in reality, reducing the universality of Islam to a modern idealistic political concept. This is precisely to adopt the framework of modernity—a framework that itself emerged from human reason after setting aside the idea of the Creator, Transcendental Reality, and metaphysical Truth. It is this revolutionary framework that contemporary Islamists have embraced. For this reason, none of them has ever succeeded, nor will they ever succeed, in establishing Islam through such a framework.

If we examine Islam itself, we find that it is the religion of the Muslim Ummah and, indeed, of the whole of humanity. From Ādam (peace be upon him) onward, Allah sent every Prophet and Messenger with this same Divine Message. In this sense, Islam is universal, comprehensive, and all-embracing.

However, when someone takes one particular and determinate aspect of this universal religion and elevates it as the ideal, he is, in effect, giving precedence to a modern, humanly constructed idealistic framework over the universality of Islam itself. Because Islam is comprehensive and universal, to confine it within a single determinate structure is to diminish its true scope. In other words, they restrict the universality of Islam to a narrow framework—a framework that is itself the product of the Western denial of the Creator and the neglect of the Supreme Truth.

For the system of governance and the Caliphate constitute only one important aspect, one branch, of Islam; they do not exhaust its totality. Yet when this single aspect is treated as the fundamental principle, the foremost objective, upon which the entirety of Islam is made to depend, the universality of Islam is reduced to something partial and restricted. This is precisely the framework of modernity.

Metaphysics expresses this through a fundamental principle: the whole is greater than the part. Universality is always greater than particularity.

Therefore, the totality of Islam is always greater than any one of its branches. In other words, no particular aspect can be made the fundamental principle. Islam itself is fundamental. At the same time, however, the neglect of any of its essential branches does not preserve this fundamentality; rather, it leads to yet another form of deviation.

For this reason, no particular ideal should be elevated as the defining principle. Islam must instead be understood as a complete way of life, just as it was understood by the Salaf. Likewise, Islam must not be subsumed within the framework of a political revolutionary ideal, for it is precisely this that displaces Islam from its proper position.

This is not to say that one cannot declare, “Islam is my ideal.” Our point is rather that there is no difficulty in describing Islam as an ideal when the term is understood in its traditional sense. The problem arises only when it is employed as a reaction to modernity, or according to the conceptual framework of modern ideology. Islam must instead remain, for us, the Divine way of life, and we must remain vigilant lest the novelties of modernity lead us into confusion.

For the traditional order is sacred, whereas the framework and methods of modernity are profane. The profane can never establish the sacred. Consequently, whoever adopts these profane modes of thought and philosophical assumptions will never establish Islam through them.

It is precisely because of this inability to distinguish between the tendencies of modernity and those of the traditional order—and because of the failure to perceive objective truth—that many come to say, “Our goal is the establishment of Islamic rule,” while rarely saying, “Our goal is to attain nearness to Allah.” Yet it is the latter that constitutes the true purpose for which mankind has been sent into this world, whereas the former is merely a means. Under the influence of modernity, they have mistaken the means for the end.

Defining Tradition

The question nevertheless remains: are we, then, denying the political dimension of Islam? Since, throughout our discussion, we have examined the contagion of modernity among those engaged in Islamic politics, it is only natural that such concerns and questions should arise in the minds of our readers. It is therefore appropriate to clarify the distinction and the governing principles somewhat more explicitly. Although we have already treated this matter in detail in the previous installments, readers may find it beneficial to revisit those discussions.

As we have already stated, the Islamic system of governance and the Khilāfah constitute one branch of Islam, but they do not constitute the whole of Islam. Confusion begins precisely when a particular branch is treated as though it were the entirety. This is the tendency we observe among both democratic and non-democratic Islamists, who elevate Islamic governance to the central position. In reality, however, the concept of Islamic governance and the Khilāfah belongs to a later stage within the overall hierarchy of Islam—at least at the level of the third or fourth order of the Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah.

Conversely, to regard any branch of Islam as insignificant is likewise to diminish its wholeness and to restrict its universality. In other words, whether one elevates a single branch to the central position, or neglects one of the branches of Islam altogether, both approaches are equally mistaken.

What is required, rather, is that Islam be embraced in its totality, just as it was embraced by the Salaf. It must be preserved from the modern idealistic framework, while at the same time remaining free from the innovations (bidʿah) that distort the traditional understanding of the religion.

Broadly speaking, both democratic and non-democratic Islamists have fallen into the trap of modernity for several reasons. The first group has now, with considerable enthusiasm, become an integral part of modernity itself. The second group, by contrast, has stepped into the same trap while crying out against it, seeking to restore the traditional order without realizing that it is, in fact, serving the very framework it opposes. It remains largely unaware of this contradiction.

One of the principal reasons for this is that neither group has been formed through a traditional intellectual education. Rather, the intellectual and academic background of most of their members has been shaped by educational systems that are entirely colonial in origin and structured according to the modern framework. Consequently, they view Tradition through modern categories while imagining themselves to be “traditional.” It is for this reason that they so readily embrace modern idealistic concepts, unaware that even their claim to be “traditional” has already been framed within the conceptual universe of modernist revolutionaries.

The reason for this is that they do not realize that the traditional order never places the political sphere at its centre. In the traditional perspective, the first priority is always the acquisition of knowledge (ʿilm). It is for this reason that, after the creation of Ādam (peace be upon him), Allah first taught him knowledge. Likewise, the very first revealed word of the Qur’an is اقرأ (Iqraʾ—”Read”), which is nothing other than a command to receive and recite revealed knowledge—to seek ʿilm. The next essential stage is tazkiyah, for knowledge is inseparable from the purification of the soul (nafs).

If the locus of revealed knowledge (ʿilm al-waḥy) becomes corrupted, or if it is mixed with impure elements, then that knowledge no longer serves as a guide; rather, it becomes a source of fitnah. When purified knowledge and a purified soul are united, Allah opens for such a person the door of ʿilm ladunnī (divinely bestowed knowledge). It is then that the light (nūr) of knowledge guides him to discern the truth (ḥaqq). We have discussed this matter in detail in the previous installments, to which the reader may refer.

Only when these two foundations are properly realized does the responsibility arise to establish justice (ʿadl) and equity (inṣāf) within society.

The essential point to understand is that, since neither of these groups has been trained in the traditional understanding of Islam, their knowledge of the religion is, in most cases, acquired through secondary sources. Consequently, when they encounter the political revolutionary movements of the modern West, their lack of formation within the traditional framework leads them to react by assuming that the only way to resist the West is to produce an equivalent political revolutionary movement. As a result, they too come to regard political revolution as fundamental, just as the modern idealists do, and thereby relocate the basic functional order of Islam into the conceptual framework of modernity.

What they fail to realize, however, is that the modern political-idealist framework is itself the consequence of the rejection of Divine Guidance and the traditional order. More precisely, within Christian society, Divine Revelation had, in reality, ceased to function as a living intellectual authority. What remained was, to a considerable extent, the esoteric teachings of Saint Paul. Consequently, such a framework could not endure indefinitely. It was for this reason that the Christians learned the methods of ʿIlm al-Kalām and discursive reasoning from the Muslims. Yet Christianity was ultimately unable to provide an adequate account of the reality of existence in the manner that Islam could.

As a consequence, Western thought gradually inclined toward subjectivism. Religion was replaced by self-constructed philosophy, which eventually assumed the form of idealism. It is precisely this same framework that the non-democratic Islamists have adopted—namely, the framework of the political revolution.

To state the matter more precisely, the replacement of religion and the emergence of self-constructed idealism occurred because Divine Guidance and Divine Wisdom were no longer present as a living source of authority within their intellectual tradition. By contrast, the commonality shared by both democratic and non-democratic Islamists is of a different kind: Divine Guidance is indeed present in Islam, yet they have not been traditionally trained to access and understand it. In most cases, they approach Islamic epistemology through a modern, pseudo-academic framework rather than through the classical tradition.

For this reason, although the flavour of their discourse remains Islamic, their mode of functioning is modern. It is precisely this phenomenon that I refer to as Pseudo-Traditionalism.

Allahu A’lam.

গত কয়েক পর্বে আমরা মুসলিমদের মধ্যে আধুনিকতার রোগ জীবাণু নিয়ে আলোচনা করেছিলাম, যা যথাযথভাবে আমরা উপস্থাপন করতে পেরেছি, কিন্তু এখনো আমাদের পাঠকদের কাছে আদর্শ কিংবা আধুনিকতার সেন্স থেকে ideology এর কনসেপ্টটা ক্লিয়ার না। কারো কারো কাছে এটা এখনো অস্পষ্ট যে কিভাবে আদর্শ বা আইডিওলজি সবসময়ই আধুনিকতার ফ্রেমওয়ার্কে আবদ্ধ এবং কিভাবে এটা জ্ঞানগত এবং কার্যক্রমের দিকে ব্যাক্তিকে তার নিজস্ব বিচার বুদ্ধিতে আবদ্ধ ও সীমবদ্ধ করে ফেলে মহাজাগতিক সত্ত্বা এবং আল্লাহর সাথে সংযুক্ত করার পরিবর্তে।

প্রথমতো আমাদের আগে বুঝতে হবে যে, আইডিওলজি শুধুমাত্র যে ব্যাক্তিকে তার নিজস্ব বিচার বুদ্ধিতে আবদ্ধ করে তা নয়, বরং তার সকল কার্যক্রমকে এমন একটা লেয়ারে শিফট করে ফেলে যেটা নিজেই আধুনিকতার ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক দারা আবদ্ধ এবং প্রভাবিত। এখানে আমরা কিছু দৃষ্টান্ত তুলে ধরবো যাতে করে এটা আমাদের জন্য বুঝতে সহজ হয় যে, কিভাবে আদর্শ ও ফান্ডামেন্টালিজমের প্রবক্তারা ট্রাডিশনাল দাবি করলেও তাদের এই দাবির পেছনের স্পিরিট বা আত্মা হচ্ছে আধুনিক, যদিও তারা এটা সম্পর্কে নিজেরাই বেখবর।

এই ধারাবাহিকতায় আমার গত তিন পর্বে বিস্তারিত আলোচনা করেছি, যা এখানে পুনরায় উল্লেখ করার প্রয়োজন আমাদের নেই, সুতরাং আমরা আমাদের আলোচনা সীমবদ্ধ রাখবো যে Pseudo-traditinolalism বা Pseudo-fundamentalism এর মধ্যে আসলে কতটুকু সামঞ্জস্যতা আছে এবং কিভাবে এরা আধুনিকতার "ট্রাডিশনাল" ভার্সন, যাদেরকে আমরা উল্লেখ করেছি Pseudo-traditionalist হিসেবে।

আধুনিক রাজনৈতিক বিপ্লবের প্রকৃতি

মডার্নিটির ধারা ও প্রকার নিয়ে আমাদের কোনো আলোচনা নেই, বরং আমরা সাধারণভাবে আলোচনা করবো হচ্ছে কিভাবে আধুনিকতা ইসলামকে "ইসলামিজমে"র দিকে নিয়ে গেছে এবং কিভাবে তারা ট্রাডিশনাল ধারাকে "ট্রডিশানালিজমে" রূপান্তর করেছে ধর্মকে নতুনভাবে ব্যাখ্যা করার মাধ্যমে, বিশেষভাবে রাজনৈতিক প্রবণতা ও মানসিকতা হলো এখানে আমাদের আলোচনা বিষয়।

এটা আমাদের সকলের কাছে স্পষ্ট ফ্রেঞ্চ রেভ্যুলেশনের পর থেকে ওয়েস্টার্নদের স্যোশাল ও পলিটিক্যাল লাইফ থেকে ধর্মকে প্রায় পুরোপুরি বাদ দিয়ে দেওয়া হয়েছে, এবং ধর্মকে মডার্নিটি দ্বারা রিপ্লেস করা হয়েছে। মডার্নিটি হচ্ছে পশ্চিমাদের একটা হিস্টোরিকাল অবস্থা (যদিও তারা মডার্নিটিকে ইউনিভার্সাল কন্ডিশন মনে করে যেটা মূলত তাদের ইতিহাসকে অন্যের উপর চাপিয়ে দেওয়া, অর্থাৎ historical imposition), যার আবার বিভিন্ন শাখাপ্রশাখা আছে, যেমন লিবারেলিজম একটা পলিটিক্যাল ফিলোসফি, সেক্যুলারিজম আবার ধর্ম ও পাবলিক স্ফেয়ার নিয়ে কথা বলে, ideology হলো পলিটিক্যাল দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি আর Capitalism হলো মডার্নিটির ইকোনমিক সিস্টেম।

কমিউনিজম যদিও ভিন্নভাবে নিজেকে উপস্থাপন করে, কিন্তু দিনশেষে এটিও মডার্নিটির একটা গুরুত্বপূর্ণ বিপরীত অঙ্গ। উপরের যেকোনো একটা বিষয়ই আপনি চিন্তা করেন না, প্রত্যেকটা ক্ষেত্রেই জনগণকে সুপ্রিম ধরা হয়ে থাকে, অর্থাৎ "for the people and by the people"। অর্থাৎ এখানে কোনো higher অথোরিটিকে অবজেক্টিভ রাখা হচ্ছে না, বরং সবচেয়ে নিম্নতর স্তরকেই সর্বোচ্চ আসনে বসানো হয়েছে। (ফিলোসফির ভাষায় বললে বহুত্বকে (multiplicity) শাসনের স্থানে রাখা হয়েছে,অথচ বহুত্ব কখনো সোর্স হতে পারে না)। পার্থক্য হলো দুইজন দুই পারসেপশন থেকে একই

লিবারেলিজম হলো মানুষের নিজস্ব সীমবদ্ধ ও সঙ্কীর্ণ জ্ঞান ও বুদ্ধি ধারা বিবেচিত কিছু মোরাল ও এথিক্যাল কন্টাক্ড, যেখানে মানুষের নীতি ও মূল্যবোধ ও শিষ্টাচারকে ঐশী বিধান, শিক্ষা ও শিষ্টাচারের বিপরীতে মানুষের নিজস্ব মস্তিস্কজাত কিছু বিবেচনা দ্বারা পরিবর্তন করা হয়েছে।

অর্থাৎ এখানেও তারা ঐশী বাণী এবং Transcendental সত্যকে উপেক্ষা করে নিজেদের মস্তিষ্কজাত মানদণ্ড দ্বারা মোরাল কন্ডাক্টের সীমানা ও ধরন নির্ধারন করছে, যার প্রকৃত বাস্তবতা হচ্ছে স্রষ্টার স্থানে মানুষের নিজেকে বসানো।

এই রেভ্যুলেশনের মাধ্যমে মানুষ যখন তার নিজস্ব সত্ত্বার চেয়েও বড় সত্ত্বাকে অস্বীকার করেছে, তখন মানুষ মূলত নিজেদেরকে বাহ্যিক এই দুনিয়াতে সীমবদ্ধ করে ফেলছে, যা এই সৃষ্টির সবচেয়ে নিম্নতর স্তর। অর্থাৎ sensible, measurable, পৃথিবী।

অর্থাৎ মানুষের সৃষ্টার স্থানে নিজেকে বসানোর মধ্যে তার উর্ধ্বজাগতিক জীবনকে সে অস্বীকার করছে, এবং একই সাথে ভাবছে এই ইহকালের পৃথিবীই একমাত্র এবং শেষ, অথচ এই মরণশীলতা সৃষ্টির সবচেয়ে নিম্নতর স্তর, যার উপরে আরো মহাজাগতিক সৃষ্টি ও জীবন বিদ্যমান।

ফলে, Transcendental সত্য এবং Metaphysical state কে অস্বীকার করার মাধ্যমে যখন তারা মহাবিশ্বে মানুষের প্রকৃত অবস্থান উপেক্ষা করে, তখন এই বাহ্যিক স্পার্শিক ও এই দুনিয়াবি জীবনই তাদের একমাত্র "জীবন" হয়ে দাঁড়ায়।

আর দুনিয়াবি জীবনই যখনই তাদের কাছে শেষ, তখন তারা এই দুনিয়াবি জীবনকে আরো "উন্নত" (progress) করতে তারা বিভিন্ন "রাজনৈতিক প্রস্তাবনা" নিয়ে আসে। কারণ রাজনীতিই এমন একটা স্তর যেখানে মানুষের দুনিয়াবি জীবনের সম্পূর্ণ মোরাল ও এথিক্যাল কন্ডাক্টকে Transcendental এবং Metaphysical সত্যের বিপরীতে রিডিফাইন করা সম্ভব।

এর ফলেই, তারা সেক্যুলারিজম, লিবারেলিজম, কমিউনিজম ও স্যোশালিজমের মতো বিভিন্ন ব্যাখ্যার আবির্ভাব ঘটায় স্রষ্টাহীন পশ্চিমা সমাজের মধ্যে। ফলে রাজনৈতিক স্তর হলো লিবারেলিজম ও মডার্নিটির ফান্ডামেন্টাল ট্রুথ, যেটা তাদের তাদের দুনিয়াবি জীবন নিয়ন্ত্রণ করে, রিডিফাইন করে এবং বিভিন্নভাবে এই হিউম্যান জেনেরেটিভ এথিক্সকে বিভিন্ন শেপ,‌ আকার ও ধরন প্রদান করে।

কারণ, ট্রডিশানাল ধর্মীয় সমাজে যেখানে মোরাল ও এথিক্যাল কন্ডাক্টকে ডিফাইন করা হতো ডিভাইন গাইডেন্স, উইজডম, ও প্রফেসির মাধ্যমে, যেটা সম্পূর্ণভাবে ছিলো Transcendental knowledge থেকে, এখন সেটা রিপ্লেস করা হয়েছে মানুষের মস্তিষ্কজাত মানদণ্ড ও সংজ্ঞা থেকে, যেটা পূরিপূর্ণ না।

অর্থাৎ যেখানে infinite এর কাজ হচ্ছে finite কে ডিফাইন করা, এখন finite নিজেই infinite কে ডিফাইন করতে চাচ্ছে, স্বাভাবিকভাবেই এটা অযৌক্তিক।

ফলে, ট্রডিশানাল ধ্যানধারণায় যেখানে মানুষের চিন্তা কাঠামোর কেন্দ্র ছিলো স্রষ্টা ও ডিভাইনটি, ঐশী ধ্যানধারণা ও মূল্যবোধ, ট্রাডিশনাল ধারার কালাপ্স ও মডার্নিটির উত্থানের ফলে এটা রিপ্লেস হয়ে যায়, "ব্যাক্তি" ও ব্যাক্তির নিজস্ব "সত্ত্বার" (confined particular being) মধ্যে, অর্থাৎ individuality, self.

অর্থাৎ মেটাফিজিক্যালি আগে যেখানে ডিভাইনটি বা স্রষ্টা ছিলেন আল্টিমেট সোর্স বা সেন্ট্রাল পয়েন্ট, সবকিছুর স্রষ্টা ও উৎস, এখন সেই স্রষ্টা রিপ্লেস হয়ে গেছে সৃষ্টি দ্বারা। অর্থাৎ absolute কে রিপ্লেস করা হয়েছে relative দ্বারা, এবং infinite এর জায়গায় বসানো হয়েছে finite কে।

অর্থাৎ মানুষ মডার্নিটির মাধ্যমে absolute কে অস্বীকার করে রিলেটিভ সত্ত্বার মধ্যে হারিয়ে গেছে, আর এটাই হচ্ছে মডার্নিটি। যেখানে সর্বোচ্চ (Transcendental/higher) সত্য বা সোর্স বলতে কিছু নাই, বরং মানুষের individuality-ই হচ্ছে আল্টিমেট বা absolute truth.

এখন যখন, তাদের মাধ্যমে Transcendental knowledge বা ডিভাইন গাইডেন্সের ধারণাই আর অবশিষ্ট নেই, তখন তাদের কাছে এই দুনিয়াবি জীবন সর্বোচ্চ থেকে যায় রাজনীতি এবং এটাকেই তারা সর্বোচ্চ চূড়া মনে করে মডার্নিটির‌। কেননা, আর যাইহোক মডার্নিটির এই হিউম্যান কনস্ট্রাকটেড এথিক্যাল কন্ডাক্ট রাষ্ট্রকেই সর্বোচ্চ চূড়া মনে করে এবং রাজনৈতিক কার্যক্রমকেই মানব জীবনের ফান্ডামেন্টাল ভ্যালুয়েবল দিক মনে করে থাকে, কারণ এখানে সর্বোচ্চ অথোরিটি হচ্ছে কালেক্টিভ হিউম্যান কনস্ট্রাকটেড রুলস, যেখানে কোনো Transcendental truth, Metaphysical Principles নাই, যেটা মানুষের মস্তিষ্কজাত বিবেচনা ও মানদণ্ডে উর্ধ্বে, স্রষ্টা বা ডিভাইনটি নেই, যেটা মানুষের নীতি নৈতিকতাকে ডিফাইন করবে, এখানে স্রষ্টা বা Transcendental Truth বা Metaphysical reality বলে কোনো স্থান নেই। যদিও থাকে, তবুও সেটা অস্পষ্ট ও বুঝার মতো‌ নয়।

এজন্য, পশ্চিমা সমাজে বিভিন্ন রাজনৈতিক ও অর্থনৈতিক প্রস্তাবনা আসে যেটাকে তারা বলে থাকে “রেভ্যুলেশন”। যেমন ফ্রেঞ্চ রেভ্যুলেশন, লিবারেলিজম, কমিউনিজম, ক্যাপিটালিজম, স্যোশালিজম ইত্যাদি এগুলো এমন বিপ্লব বা রেভ্যুলেশন, যেগুলো ব্যাপকভাবে রাজনীতি কেন্দ্রিক, অর্থাৎ ধর্মের যেই spirituality বা আধ্যাত্মিকতা আছে এবং মানুষের যেই রুহানি সত্ত্বা আছে, এই সকল মডার্ন আইডিয়ালিস্টিক বিপ্লবের মধ্য এমন কোনো প্রস্তাবনা বা দিক নাই, এজন্যই এদের চিন্তা চেতনার ফান্ডামেন্টাল পয়েন্ট হচ্ছে "রাজনৈতিক বিপ্লব" বা "পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশন"।

আর এটাই হচ্ছে পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশনের প্রকৃত বাস্তবতা, যেখানে ঐশী বিধান নেই, ডিভাইন গাইডেন্স ও উইজডম নেই, প্রফেটিক এথিক্যাল কন্ডাক্ট নেই, বরং যা কিছু এটা উপস্থাপন করে তার পুরোটাই মহান সত্তা থেকে বিচ্ছিন্ন ইন্ডিভিজুয়াল হিউম্যান কনস্ট্রাকটেড এথিক্যাল রুলস, যেটার সাথে উর্ধ্বজগতের কোন সংযোগ নেই যেটা মেটাফিজিক্যালি সৃষ্টির সবচেয়ে নিম্নতর স্তর, এসব কিছুরই অনুপস্থিতিই হচ্ছে পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশনের আসল চরিত্র।

এটা এই কারণে যে, তারা পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশনকেই সবচেয়ে বড় মানব জীবনের লক্ষ্য মনে করে যে, তাদের কাছে কোনো ডিভাইন গাইডেন্স নাই, প্রফেটিক এথিক্যাল কন্ডাক্ট নাই, তাদের কাছে ঐশী বানি ও ডিভাইন উইজডম নাই, ফলে তাদের কাছে এমন পূর্ব-জ্ঞান নাই, যা মানুষের ব্যাক্তি সামাজিক ও রাজনৈতিক এথিকসে ডিফাইন করবে। অর্থাৎ ডিভাইন গাইডেন্সের অনুপস্থিতি পশ্চিমা সমাজকে "পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশনকে" সর্বোচ্চ চূড়া মনে করার ফাঁদে আটকে ফেলেছে।

যার কারণে, তাদের মধ্যে আধুনিকতা ও স্পিরিচুয়ালিটি নাই, বরং যা আছে তা নিছকই matter বা ম্যাটেরিয়ালিজম, দুনিয়া কেন্দ্রিক (earth bounded)। আর এ কারণেই তাদেরকে materialist বলা হয়। (দুর্ভাগ্যজনক ভাবে আজকাল ইসলামপন্থীরাও এই বস্তুবাদী ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক ব্যবহার করে থাকেন)

অর্থাৎ আমরা আমাদের এতক্ষনের আলোচনায় এটা বুঝতে পারলাম যে ঐশী বাণী ও ডিভাইন উইজডম ও গাইডেন্সের অনুপুস্থিতি যাদের মধ্যে আছে, তাদের ফান্ডামেন্টাল চূড়া হয় হচ্ছে "পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশন", অর্থাৎ পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশনই হচ্ছে তাদের "আদর্শ", এর বাইরে তাদের কাছে এমন কিছু নাই, যা তারা মানব সভ্যতাকে অফার করতে পারবে, বরং যা কিছুই তারা আনবে তা হবে ব্যাক্তি ও সত্ত্বা কেন্দ্রিক (self) এখানে অতি-সত্ত্বার (beyond self, Transcendental truth) কোনো ধারনাই আর নেই।

এখন আমার আলোচনা করবো যে এই পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশন যেটা পশ্চিমা সমাজে চূড়ান্ত সত্য (absolute truth) ও মেটাফিজিক্যাল রিয়ালিটি ও ডিভাইন গাইডেন্সের স্থানে সবোর্চ্চ অথোরিটি হিসেবে নিজেকে রিপ্লেস করছে, কিভাবে খেলাফতের পতনের পর এটা মুসলমানদের চিন্তাধারাকে প্রভাবিত করতে শুরু করছে। অর্থাৎ কিভাবে এটা ট্রাডিশনাল ফ্রেমওয়ার্ককে মডার্ন আইডিয়ালিস্টিক ফ্রেমওয়ার্কে রুপান্তর করছে, অর্থাৎ পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশনকে মুসলমানদের ফান্ডামেন্টাল ধ্যান ধারণায় রিপ্লেস করার চেষ্টা করছে, যেটাকে আমরা বলতে পারি "ইসলামিজম", কিন্তু কখনোই "ইসলাম" নয়।

আদর্শবাদ ও ব্যাখ্যামূলক বিভ্রান্তি

বিগত পর্বেগুলোতে আমরা স্পষ্ট করেছি ইখওয়ান কিভাবে বিভ্রান্ত হয়ে পড়ে আধুনিকতার রাজনৈতিক দলের সাথে সামঞ্জস্যতা করতে গিয়ে এবং কিভাবে তাদেরই মধ্যে আরেকটা নন-ডেমোক্রেটিক ইসলামপন্থীদের আবির্ভাব হয় যায়, যারা একই ইসলামী বিপ্লবের কথা বলে, কিন্তু নন-ডেমোক্রেটিক ও সশস্ত্র পন্থায়।

নন-ডেমোক্রেটিক আর ডেমোক্রেটিক ইসলামপন্থীদের বেশকিছু পার্থক্য চিন্তাগত পার্থক্য আছে, যেগুলো নিছকই ক্ষমতাকেন্দ্রিক এবং ক্ষমতায় যাওয়া যাবে কিংবা কিভাবে ইসলাম প্রতিষ্ঠা করা যাবে- এই বিষয়ের মতপার্থক্য থেকে এই দুই গ্রুপের মধ্যে বিভক্তি দেখা দেয়‌ এবং এই জায়গা থেকেই তাদের অন্যান্য শাখাগত মতপার্থক্যের সূচনা হয়।

এখন এদের কাউকে যদি প্রশ্ন করা হয় যে, তাদের জীবনের উদ্দেশ্য কী? তাহলে সাধারণত যেই উত্তর দিয়ে থাকে, তাহলে সমাজে ইসলামী খেলাফত ও শাসনব্যবস্থা প্রতিষ্ঠা করা এবং একই সাথে এটাকে তারা মনে করে থাকে তাদের আদর্শ।

সমস্যা হচ্ছে আল্লাহ তায়ালা মানুষকে দুনিয়াতে পাঠিয়েছেন ইবাদতের জন্য, এটা হচ্ছে প্রথম উদ্দেশ্য, অর্থাৎ আল্লাহ তায়ালা মানুষকে কোন রাজনৈতিক ও পলিটিক্যাল অর্ডার প্রতিষ্ঠা করতে পাঠাননি, যেমনটা পশ্চিমারা "বিপ্লবের" মাধ্যমে মনে থাকে যে, দুনিয়াতে মানব সভ্যতার সর্বোচ্চ চূড়া হচ্ছে রাজনৈতিক ও অর্থনৈতিক স্বাধীনতা!

এখন, আমাদের এখানে বুঝতে হবে যখন নন-ডেমোক্রেটিক এবং ডেমোক্রেটিক ইসলামপন্থীরা খেলাফতের পতনের পর নিজেদের রাজনৈতিক ব্যবস্থাকে পুনরায় প্রতিষ্ঠা করার লক্ষ্যে তারা যখন এটাকে "আদর্শ" বানিয়ে ফেলছে, তখনই তারা মূলত মডার্নিটির ফাঁদে আটকে গেছে, কেননা পশ্চিমাদের পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশন মূলত Transcendental truth এবং Metaphysical প্রিন্সিপাল এবং ঐশী বিধান ও ডিভাইন গাইডেন্সেরকে অস্বীকার ও অনুপস্থিতির ফলাফল, কিন্তু যখন একই "পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশনারি" ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক মুসলিমরা গ্রহণ করতেছে, তারা তখন মূলত নিজেদের অজ্ঞতা থেকে ডিভাইন গাইডেন্স ও ট্রডিশানাল ধারার ধারাবাহিকতা উপেক্ষা করে নিজেদের উপর পশ্চিমাদের হিস্টোরিক্যাল কন্ডিশনকে আরোপ করতেছে। (যেটা উপরে আলোচনা করেছি )

আর এখানেই মূলত বিভ্রান্তি শুরু হয়, যেখানে তারা ইসলামের ট্রাডিশনাল ধারাকে পুনরুজ্জীবিত করার পরিবর্তে মডার্নিটির ফাঁদে পড়ে যায়। ডেমোক্রেটিক ইসলামপন্থীরা এভাবে গোমারাহ হতে থাকে এবং একটা সময় ইসলামের ইবাদাহ শরিয়তের বিভিন্ন বিধানের ও শর্তের সাথে আপোষ করতে থাকে, কারণ তারা তাদের ফান্ডামেন্টাল বিষয় মনে করে থাকে ক্ষমতাকে, অর্থাৎ "শাসন" বা "ক্ষমতার" মাধ্যমে পরিবর্তন। অন্যদিকে নন-ডেমোক্রেটিক ইসলামপন্থীরা একই ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক গ্রহণ করে অর্থাৎ "ইসলামিক পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশন", যেখানে গণতান্ত্রিক রাজনীতিকে ভিলিফাই করে, কিন্তু দিনশেষে এই “পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশনারি” ফ্রেমওয়ার্কের মধ্যে তারা আটকে থাকে, এবং "বিপ্লবের মাধ্যমে শাসনব্যবস্থা প্রতিষ্ঠা"র তত্ত্ব নিয়ে হাজির হয়, যেটা আবার কার্ল মার্কস লেনিন, কমিউনিস্টদের ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক।

অথচ রাসূলুল্লাহ সাল্লাল্লাহু আলাইহি ওয়াসাল্লাম শাসন বা ক্ষমতা দিয়ে সমাজ বা রাষ্ট্র পরিবর্তন করেননি, বরং তিনি আগে মানুষ পরিবর্তন করেছেন, আল্লাহ এর ফলস্বরূপ তাদেরকে ক্ষমতা দিয়েছেন, এই ব্যাপারে বিস্তারিত আমরা বিগত পর্বেগুলোতে আলোচনা করেছি।

এট আমাদের বুঝতে হবে, আইডিওলজি বা আদর্শ সবসময়ই পার্টিকুলার বা নির্দিষ্ট বিষয়কে ইঙ্গিত করে থাকে। অর্থ্যাৎ যেটা সীমবদ্ধ, আবদ্ধ, যার একটা বাউন্ডারি আছে কিন্তু সে পরিব্যপ্ত ও‌ বিস্তৃত না।

মেটাফিজিক্যালি পরিব্যাপ্ত ও বিস্তৃত হলো, যেটা Transcendental truth এবং Metaphysical Principles কে ইনক্লুড করে বা নিজের মধ্যে ধারন করে। পশ্চিমা বিশ্ব যখন ধর্মের ব্যাপারে অনুকূল ছিলো তখন তারা মূলত সবসময়ই এই টু-ডায়মেনশনাল সত্যকে ইনক্লুড করেই নিজেদের বিশ্বাস ও জীবনকে সাজিয়ে ছিলো, এজন্য ওই সমাজ ও পরিবেশকে তারা মডার্ন পিরিয়ড বলে না বরং যখন থেকে তাদের মধ্যে রেনে ডেকার্তের সাবজেক্টিভিজম প্রবেশ করে এবং কান্টিয়ান ফিলোসফি মেটাফিজিক্স Transcendentalism কে সন্দেহ পোষণ করতে শুরু করে, তখন তারা স্রষ্টা সরে আসে দুনিয়া কেন্দ্রিক হয়ে পড়ে, যে ব্যাপারে আমরা বিস্তারিত আলোচনা করেছি বিগত পর্বে, ফলে তখন তারা এই দুনিয়াবি জীবনকে সম্পূর্ণভাবে নিজেদের মস্তিষ্কজাত মানদণ্ড থেকে পুনরায় সংজ্ঞায়িত করতে থাকে, আর এখান থেকেই শুরু হয় আইডিয়ালিজম (idealism), কেননা এভাবেই পশ্চিমা বিশ্বের ফিলোসফাররা ডিভাইনটিকে (স্রষ্টা) অস্বীকার করে নিজেদের আইডিয়া (Idea) থেকে এটা (মডার্নিটি ও রেনেসাঁর কনসেপ্ট, যেটা ধর্মকে রিপ্লেস করেছে পশ্চিমে) কনস্ট্রাকট করছে, ফলে তাদের আইডিয়া থেকে উৎসারিত হওয়ার কারণে এটা হয় পড়ে তাদের "Ideal", আর এখান থেকেই আইডিয়ালজিম (idealism) এবং অন্যান্য যত ধরনের কোয়ালিফিকেশন "ইজম" দ্বারা, যেই আইডিয়ালিজমকে আমরা অনুবাদ করি "আদর্শ" দ্বারা।

তবে, প্লেটোর idea আর মডার্ন Idealism কিন্তু এক নয় এবং দুইটাকে এক মনে করে কনফিউজড হওয়া যাবে না, কারণ প্লেটোর idea মূলত গ্রিক শব্দ ἰδεῖν=idein থেকে আসছে, আসল অর্থ হচ্ছে to see বা to perceive, form, দেখা বা উপলব্ধি করা আর প্লেটো এটা ব্যবহার করছেন সম্পূর্ণভাবে মেটাফিজিক্যাল পয়েন্ট অফ ভিউ থেকে। অর্থাৎ প্লেটোর idea মূলত মেটাফিজিক্যাল form অর্থে ব্যবহার করার হয়েছে, যেটা existence কে বাস্তবায়িত (actualise) করার পূর্ব অবস্থা (precondition)। অন্যদিকে মডার্ন idea এবং idealism বেশিরভাগ ক্ষেত্রেই সাবজেক্টিব হয়ে গেছে, যেটা প্লেটোর form=idea ধারনার সম্পূর্ণ বিপরীত। অন্যভাবে বলতে গেলে প্লেটোর from বা idea universal intellect সাথে যুক্ত, যেটা intellect এর সর্বোচ্চ অবস্থা, অন্যদিকে মডার্ন ideal সাবজেক্টিভ হওয়ার কারণে সবচেয়ে নিম্নতর স্তর হওয়ার কারণে individual intellect এর সাথে যুক্ত।

এই ব্যাপারে আমাদের স্পষ্ট থাকতে হবে যে পার্টিকুলারিটা বা কোনো কিছুর "নির্দিষ্ট" হওয়ার মানে সেটা সম্পূর্ণ না, কারণ, infinite বা অসীমকে কোনো কিছুর মধ্যে সীমাবদ্ধ করা সম্ভব না, অন্যদিকে finite বা সসীম সবসময়ই সীমবদ্ধতাকে ইঙ্গিত করে, আর ideal শব্দটা নিজেই নির্দিষ্টতা বা পার্টিকুলারিটিকে নির্দেশ করে যেহেতু 'আইডিয়াল' নিজেই মানুষের মস্তিষ্কজাত বিবেচনা ও মানদণ্ড থেকে তৈরি করা, ফলে এটাও নির্দিষ্ট, সীমবদ্ধ এবং সঙ্কীর্ণ।

যখন ইসলামপন্থীদের কেউ বলে যে তার আদর্শ হলো ইসলামী শাসন প্রতিষ্ঠা করা, তখন সে মূলত ইসলামের পরিব্যপ্ততা থেকে এটাকে মডার্ন আইডিয়ালিস্টিক পলিটিক্যাল কনসপ্টের মধ্যে সীমাবদ্ধ করে, আর এটাই হচ্ছে মডার্নিটির ফ্রেমওয়ার্কে গ্রহণ করা যেই ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক নিজেই স্রষ্টার ধারনা, Transcendental reality এবং মেটাফিজিট্যাল বাস্তবতাকে উপেক্ষা করে মানুষের সীমবদ্ধ বিবেচনা থেকে আবিষ্কৃত হয়েছে, আর আধুনিক ইসলামপন্থীরা এই "বিপ্লবী" ফ্রেমওয়ার্ককেই গ্রহণ করেছে, তাই তাদের কারো পক্ষেই ইসলাম প্রতিষ্ঠা করা কখনো সম্ভব হয়নি এবং না কখনো হবে।

ইসলামকে যদি আমরা যাচাই করি, তাহলে এটা হচ্ছে মুসলিম জাতির এবং সমগ্র মানব সভ্যতার ধর্ম, আদম আলাইহিস সালাম থেকে সকল নবী রাসুলদেরকে আল্লাহ এই বাণী দিয়েই পাঠিয়েছেন, সেই দিক থেকে ইসলাম হচ্ছে ইউনিভার্সাল, পরিব্যাপ্ত ও বিস্তৃত। কিন্তু যখন এই পরিব্যাপ্ত ইসলামের পার্টিকুলার ও নির্দিষ্ট কোনো অংশকে কেউ "আদর্শ" বিবেচনা করছে, তখন সে মূলত মডার্ন আইডিয়ালিস্টিক হিউম্যান কনস্ট্রাকটেড ফ্রেমওয়ার্কে ইউনিভার্সাল পরিব্যাপ্তির উপর প্রাধান্য দিচ্ছে, যেহেতু ইসলাম বিস্তৃত ও পরিব্যপ্ত। অর্থাৎ তারা ইসলামের পরিব্যাপ্ততাকে সীমাবদ্ধ করে ফেলছে নির্দিষ্ট একটা কাঠামোর মধ্যে যেই কাঠামো নিজেই পশ্চিমাদের স্রষ্টাকে অস্বীকার করা এবং সর্বোচ্চ সত্যকে উপেক্ষা করার ফলাফল! কেননা শাসনব্যবস্থা ও খিলাফত ইসলামের একটা গুরুত্বপূর্ণ নির্দিষ্ট অংশ একটা শাখা, এটা সম্পূর্ণ না। কিন্তু যখন এটাকেই ফান্ডামেন্টাল ধরে নিয়ে এবং এটাকে প্রথম (foremost) ধরে নিয়ে সম্পূর্ণ ইসলামকে এটার পেছনে ডিপেন্ডেড করতেছে, তখন সে মূলত ইসলামের পরিব্যপ্ততা থেকেই এটাকে ভেঙ্গে সঙ্কীর্ণ করে ফেলছে। আর এটাই হচ্ছে মডার্নিটির ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক। আর মেটাফিজিক্সে একটা মূলনীতি আছে whole is greater than part, পরিব্যাপ্তি নির্দিষ্টতা থেকে বড়।

সুতরাং ইসলামের সম্পূর্ণতা এর যেকোন একটা শাখা থেকে বড়। অর্থাৎ আপনি নির্দিষ্ট কিছুকে ফান্ডামেন্টাল বানাতে পারবেন না, বরং ইসলামই ফান্ডামেন্টাল কিন্তু ওই শাখা ছাড়া আপনার মৌলিকত্ব আবার বজায় থাকবে না, বরং এটা আরেকটা গোমারহিতে রূপান্তরিত হবে। এজন্য পার্টিকুলার কোনো আদর্শ হবে না বরং ইসলামকে জীবন ব্যবস্থা হিসেবেই দেখতে হবে যেমনটা সালাফরা দেখেছিলেন, এবং ইসলামকে পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশনারি আদর্শের মধ্যেও ইনক্লুড করা থেকে বিরত থাকতে হবে, কারণ এই জিনিসটাই ইসলামকে তার প্রকৃত অবস্থান থেকে সরিয়ে দেয়।

তবে আমার এটা বলছি না যে কেউ এটা বলতে পারবে না যে "ইসলাম তার আদর্শ", বরং আমাদের কথা হচ্ছে ইসলামকে ট্রাডিশনাল সেন্স থেকে আদর্শ বলাতে কোনো সমস্যা নেই, বরং মডার্নিটির রিয়েকশন হিসেবে না, বরং এটা ঐশী জীবন বিধান হিসেবে আমাদের মধ্যে থাকতে হবে এবং আধুনিকতার কোনো নতুনত্ব যেন আমাদের বিভ্রান্ত করতে না পারে এই ব্যাপারে সতর্ক থাকতে হবে‌।

কারণ, ট্রডিশানাল ধারার হচ্ছে পবিত্র এবং মডার্নিটির এই ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক ও কৌশল হচ্ছে অপবিত্র। আর অপবিত্রতা কখনো পবিত্রতাকে স্থাপন করতে পারে না। এখন কেউ যদি এই অপবিত্র চিন্তা চেতনা ও দর্শনকে গ্রহণ করে, তাহলে তাদের দ্বারা কখনো ইসলাম আসবে না।

আর তাই, মডার্নিটি এবং ট্রডিশানাল ধারার প্রবণতা না বুঝতে পারার এই কনফিউশন ও অবজেক্টিভ সত্যকে উপলব্ধি করতে না পারার কারণেই তারা বলে যে তাদের “লক্ষ্য উদ্দেশ্য হচ্ছে ইসলামী শাসনকে বাস্তবায়ন করা”, কিন্তু কখনোই এটা বলে না যে “লক্ষ্য উদ্দেশ্য আল্লাহর নৈকট্য অর্জন করা”, অথচ দ্বিতীয় বিষয়টাই তো আসল উদ্দেশ্য এই পৃথিবীতে পাঠানোর, অন্যদিকে প্রথমটা হচ্ছে নিছকই ‘মাধ্যম’। এই আধুনিকতায় আক্রান্ত হয়ে তারা মাধ্যমকে গন্তব্য বানিয়ে ফেলছে।

ঐতিহ্যের সংজ্ঞায়ন

এখন প্রশ্ন থেকে যায়, আমরা কি ইসলামের রাজনৈতিক দিককে অস্বীকার করছি? যেহেতু আমরা আমাদের আলোচনায় এতক্ষণ ধরে যারা ইসলামের রাজনীতি করে তাদের মধ্যে মডার্নিটির রোগ জীবাণু সম্পর্কে আলোচনা করেছি, তাই কিছু উৎকণ্ঠা ও জিজ্ঞাসা আমাদের পাঠকদের কাছে উপস্থিত হওয়া স্বাভাবিক। এজন্য এখানে পার্থক্য ও মূলনীতি নিয়ে আমাদের আলোচনা করা উচিত আরেকটু স্পষ্টভাবে। যদিও বিগত পর্বগুলোতে আমরা এই ব্যাপারে বিস্তারিত আলোচনা করেছি, পাঠকরা সেখানে আরেকবার পাঠক চোখ বুলাতে পারেন।

উপরে আমরা বলেছি যে ইসলামী শাসন ও খিলাফাহ ইসলামের একটা শাখা, কিন্তু সম্পূর্ণ ইসলাম না‌। এখন যদি কেউ পার্টিকুলার শাখা সম্পূর্ণ শাখাভাবে তখনই মূলত বিভ্রান্তি শুরু হয়, যেটা ডেমোক্রেটিক এবং নন-ডেমোক্রেটিক ইসলামপন্থীদের মধ্যে আমরা দেখতে পাই, যে তারা ইসলামী শাসনকে সেন্ট্রাল পজিশনে নিয়ে আসে, অন্যদিকে ইসলামের শাসন ও খিলাফতের কনসেপ্ট আসে আরো অনেক পড়ে অন্তত মাকাসিদে শরিয়তের তৃতীয় বা চতুর্থ পর্যায়ে।

এখন এই সম্পূর্ণ ইসলামের যেকোনো একটা শাখাকে অগুরুত্বপূর্ণ মনে করাই হলো সম্পূর্ণতাকে সঙ্কীর্ণ করা, পরিব্যপ্তিকে সঙ্কুচিত করা। অর্থাৎ আপনি শাখাকে যদি সেন্ট্রাল পজিশনে নিয়ে আসন অথবা সম্পূর্ণ ইসলাম থেকে যেকোনো একটা শাখাকে উপেক্ষা করেন— দুইটাই ভুল পদ্ধতি। যেটা করতে হবে ইসলামের সম্পূর্ণতাকে সেভাবেই গ্রহণ করতে হবে যেভাবে সালাফরা গ্রহণ করেছিলেন, এটাকে মডার্ন আইডিয়ালিস্টিক ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক থেকেও দূরে রাখতে এবং বিদআতের সমস্যা থেকেও মুক্ত থাকতে হবে।

ডেমোক্রেটিক এবং নন ডেমোক্রেটিক ইসলামপন্থীরা মোটাদাগে কয়েকটা কারণে মডার্নিটিরি ফাঁদে আটকা পড়েছে, যদিও প্রথম গ্রুপ এখন নিজেই খুবই উৎসাহের সাথে মডার্নিটির একটা অংশ বর্তমান সময়ে, অন্যদিকে দ্বিতীয় গ্রুপ মডার্নিটির ফাঁদে পা দিয়ে আর্তচিৎকার করছে এবং ট্রাডিশনাল ধারাকে ফিরিয়ে আনতে চাচ্ছে এই ব্যাপারে অজ্ঞাত থেকে যে সে নিজেই তাদের হয়ে কাজ করছে, অথচ সে এব্যাপারে উদাসীন।

এর অন্যতম একটা কারণ হলো এই দুই গ্রুপের কেউই ট্রাডিশনাল ধারার শিক্ষায় প্রশিক্ষিত না, বরং তাদের বেশিরভাগেরই ইন্টেলেকচুয়াল একাডেমিক ব্যাকগ্রাউন্ড এমন শিক্ষা ব্যবস্থা থেকে যেটা সম্পূর্ণ কলোনিয়াল এবং মডার্ন ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক দিয়ে সাজানো, এজন্য তারা ট্রাডিশনকে দেখে মডার্ন ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক থেকে এবং নিজেদেরকে ভাবেও "ট্রডিশানাল", এজন্য তারা খুব মডার্ন আইডিয়ালিস্টিক কনসেপ্টকে সহজেই লুফে নেয় নিজেদের অজান্তেই যে তাদের "ট্রডিশানাল" হওয়ার ক্লেইমটাই মডার্নিস্ট বিপ্লবীদের ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক।‌

এটার কারণ হচ্ছে তারা জানেই না যে ট্রাডিশনাল ধারা কখনো পলিক্যাল গোলকে সেন্ট্রাল বানায় না, বরং ট্রাডিশনাল ধারায় সর্বপ্রথম আসেই হচ্ছে ইলম অর্জন। এজন্য আদম আলাইহিস সালামকে সৃষ্টির পর সর্বপ্রথম তিনি তাকে ইলম দিয়েছিলেন, এজন্য কুরআনের সর্বপ্রথম শব্দও হচ্ছে أقرأ "to read", পড়া যা আর কিছু নয় বরং ইলমে ওহীকে পাঠ করার কথা বলা হয়েছে, ইলম অর্জনের কথা বলা হয়েছে। এরপর যেই গুরুত্বপূর্ণ দ্বিতীয় স্থান তা হলো তাযকিয়াহ, যেই স্থানে ইলম থাকে অর্থাৎ নফসের পরিচ্ছন্নতা।

ইলমে ওহী যেই স্থানে থাকে সেটা যদি কারাপ্ট হয়, অপবিত্র জিনিস মিশ্রিত থাকে, তখন সেই ইলম পথ দেখায় না, বরং ফেতনা উন্মুক্ত করে‌। পবিত্র নফস এবং ইলম যখন একত্রিত হয় তখন আল্লাহ তায়ালা তাঁর জন্য ইলমে লাদুন্নির দরজা উন্মুক্ত করে দেন, তখন ইলমের নূর তাকে পথ দেখায় যে হক কোনটা। এই ব্যাপারে আমরা বিগত পর্বেগুলোতে বিস্তারিত আলোচনা করেছি, সেখানে দেখা যেতে পারে। এই দুইটা বিষয় যখন পরিপূর্ণ হয় তখন তার উপর দায়িত্ব আসে সমাজে ইনসাফ ও ন্যায় প্রতিষ্ঠার করার।

বুঝার বিষয় হলো যখন তাদের কেউই ট্রাডিশনাল ধারায় ইসলামের ব্যাপারে প্রশিক্ষিত নয়, তখন তারা ইসলামের ব্যাপারে জানতে পারে বেশিরভাগই ক্ষেত্রেই সেকেন্ডারি সোর্স থেকে, ফলে যখন তারা পশ্চিমাদের পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশনারি মুভমেন্ট দেখে, তখন তারা ফান্ডামেন্টালি ট্রডিশানাল ধারায় প্রশিক্ষিত না হওয়ার কারণে তাদের মধ্যে রিয়েকশন থেকে তারা মনে করে পশ্চিমাদের প্রতিরোধ করতে তাদেরকেও ‘পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশনারি মুভমেন্ট’ আনতে হবে। ফলে, তারাও মডার্ন আইডিয়ালিস্টিকদের মতো পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশনারি মুভমেন্টকে ফান্ডামেন্টাল ধরে নেয় এবং ইসলামের বেসিক ফাংশনাল সিস্টেমকে মডার্নিটির ফ্রেমওয়ার্কে নিয়ে যায়।

অথচ তারা এটা বুঝে না যে মডার্ন পলিটিক্যাল আইডিয়ালিস্টিক ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক ডিভাইন গাইডেন্স ও ট্রডিশানাল ধারাকে অস্বীকার করার ফল, আর সঠিকভাবে বললে খৃষ্টান সমাজে মূলত ঐশী বাণীই ছিলো না, যেটা আছে সেটা মূলত সেইন্ট পলের নিজের ইজোটেরিক কথাবার্তা, ফলে এটা এমনিতেও আর বেশিদিন স্থায়ী হতো না, তাই মুসলমানদের কাছে থেকে তারা ইলমুল কালামের ডিসকার্সিভ রিসনিং শিখেছিলো, এবং সেখান থেকে existence এর বাস্তবতার কোনো উত্তর খৃষ্টান ধর্ম যথাযথভাবে দিতে সক্ষম ছিলো না যেমনটা ইসলাম দিতে পারছে, এরই ফলে তারা সাবজেক্টিভিজমের দিকে ঝুঁকে পড়ে‌, এবং ধর্মকে self constructed ফিলোসফি দ্বারা রিপ্লেস করে এটাকে আইডিয়ালিজমের রূপ দেয়, আর নন ডেমোক্রেটিক ইসলামপন্থীরা এই ফ্রেমওয়ার্কেই গ্রহণ করে,‌ অর্থাৎ "পলিটিক্যাল রেভ্যুলেশনারি ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক"।

আরো যথাযথভাবে বললে ধর্মকে তাদের রিপ্লেস করা এবং সেলফ কনস্ট্রাকটেড আইডিয়ালিজমের উদ্ভব ঘটানোর কারণ হলো তাদের কাছে ডিভাইন গাইডেন্স ও উইজডমের উপস্থিতি ছিলো না, অন্যদিকে ডেমোক্রেটিক এবং নন-ডেমোক্রেটিক ইসলামপন্থীদের সামঞ্জস্যতা হলো তাদের কাছেও ডিভাইন গাইডেন্স আছে কিন্তু সেটাতে এক্সেস করার জন্য ট্রডিশানালি তারা প্রশিক্ষিত না এবং বেশিরভাগ ক্ষেত্রেই তারা ইসলামকে ক্লাসিক্যাল ধারার বিপরীতে মডার্ন pseudo-academic ওয়েতে ইসলামী জ্ঞানতত্ত্বকে বিবেচনা করে, এজন্য তাদের ফ্লেভার ইসলামিক হলেও ওয়ে অব ফাংশন মডার্ন, আর এটাকেই আমি বলছি Pseudo-traditionalism।

মূল প্রবন্ধ এখানেই শেষ, এখন এক্সট্রা কিছু আলোচনা

এখন প্রশ্ন থেকে যায় হলো কায়েদা এবং তালিবানদের ব্যাপারে, আর তা হলো তারাও তো নন-ডেমোক্রেটিক, এখন কি আমরা বলবো যে তারাও মডার্ন এই সেন্স থেকে যাদের ব্যাপারে আমরা উপরে আলোচনা করলাম? উত্তর হলো না। এটা অস্বীকার করার উপায় নাই যে কায়েদা রিয়েকশানারি পরিবেশ থেকে উঠে এসেছে শুরুর দিকে, বিশেষ করে এর সমর্থকরা বেশিরভাগ প্রথমদিকে ছিলো ইখওয়ানি ধারার, কিন্তু যারা আবার হাসান আল বান্না রহ সময়কাল দেখেছেন আর হাসান আল বান্না রহ পরিপূর্ণভাবে ট্রডিশানাল ছিলেন এবং এবং আমরা যেই শর্তগুলো বলে থাকি ট্রডিশানাল ধারার, তিনি সেভাবেই কাজ করছিলেন, মডার্নিটি তাঁর পরবর্তী প্রজন্মের মধ্যে বিস্তার লাভ করে। আর কায়েদা নিজেও ছিলো শায়খ আজজাম রহ হাতে গোড়া,(মাকতাব আল খিদমাহ থেকে ) এবং কায়েদার বেশিরভাগ থিংকট্যাঙ্ক উপমহাদেশে ট্রডিশানাল ধারার উলামারাই‌ যারা বেশিরভাগই আলেম-উলামা এজন্য এটাকে মডার্ন ক্লেইম করার যৌক্তিকতা অনেক কম। এটা ভিন্ন ব্যাপার যে কায়েদা কোনো মানদণ্ড না, বরং কায়েদা বড় বড় কিছু ভুলের মধ্যে ছিলো, এবং আমরা যেই বিষয়গুলো এই চার পর্ব ধরে আলোচনা করছি তার অনেক সদস্যরাই এথেকে মুক্ত ছিলো না। এজন্য এই সত্যতা তো কেউ অস্বীকার করতে পারবে না যে আধুনিক খারেজিরা কায়েদারই একটা অঙ্গ ছিলো, যারা শরিয়তের ব্যাপারে অযোজ্ঞ, আকিদার ব্যাপারে মূর্খ ও জাহেল, হঠকারী এবং নিছকই "আদর্শিক" কোনো ধরনের কোয়ালিফিকেশন ও যোগ্যতা ছাড়াই। এটা আর কোনো কারণে তৈরি হয়নি বরং তাসাউফের অনুপস্থিতি এবং শরিয়তের ইলমের ব্যাপারে তাদের জাহালত এবং নিছকই মডার্ন পলিটিক্যাল আইডিয়ালিজমকে "ইসলামিক রেভ্যুলেশনারি" রূপ দেওয়ার কারণে তৈরি হয়েছে। এজন্যই আল্লাহ তায়ালা প্রত্যেক নবী রাসুলদেরকে মানুষকে তাওহীদ শেখানোর পর ইলম ও তাযকিয়াহর কাজ করতে বলেছিলেন, কিন্তু কখনোই প্রথমেই শাসনব্যবস্থার কথা বলেননি। ইলম ও রুহানিয়াত ছাড়া "আদর্শ" হলো জাহেলিয়াতের আদর্শ, ফেতনার আদর্শ"।

অন্যদিকে তালিবানদের উত্থানের ইতিহাস এবং প্রেক্ষাপট সম্পূর্ণভাবে ভিন্ন। তালিবানদের ইসলামি শাসন ও খিলাফাহ প্রতিষ্ঠার ইতিহাস মিলে যায় শাহ ওয়ালিউল্লাহ মুহাদ্দিসে দেহলভী রহ সাথে, যার আন্দোলনের মূলে ছিলো আলেম উলামা এবং সুফি মাশায়েখরা, যিনি নিজে ছিলেন তরীকার সবচেয়ে বড় একজন আউলিয়া এবং তার জামানার সবচেয়ে মহান কুতুব, যিনি ইলমুল কালাম এবং ইলমুল হাকায়েকে তার সময়ের সবচেয়ে উচ্চতার স্থানে ছিলেন। আর সবচেয়ে বড় কথা তালিবরা প্রত্যেকেই ইলমের সাথে গভীরভাবে যেমন জড়িত, তেমনিভাবে তাসাউফের সাথে গভীরভাবে সংযুক্ত। ফলে তাদের রিয়েকশানারী মেন্টালিটি কম এবং তারা ইসলামকে মডার্ন পলিটিক্যাল মুভমেন্টের রিয়েকশন হিসেবে দেখে না, বরং দেখে ঐশী বিধান যা তার উপর ফরজ করা হয়েছে। ফলে তালিবদের ইসলামের প্রতিষ্ঠার আন্দোলন আর কায়েদার প্রেক্ষাপট এক না, বরং সম্পূর্ণ ভিন্ন ভিন্ন। আমরা এটা বলতে পারি যে উভয়ের মৌলিক উদ্দেশ্য এক যে তারা উভয়েই ইসলামি শরিয়তকে বাস্তবায়ন করতে চায়, কিন্তু তাদের ওয়ে অফ থিংকিং এবং পারসেপশন এক না।

কারো কারো মধ্যে এমন মেজাজ আছে যারা ভাবে তারা উভয়েই 'এক' এই ধরনের কথাও সমস্যাজনক, কারণ আমার Unity কথা বলি Uniformity-র না, কারণ Uniformity নিজেই আধুনিকতার একটা ফসল, আর Unity হলো ক্লাসিক্যাল ধারার মানদণ্ড। তবে এখানে তালিবানদের ইতিহাস তুলে ধরা উদ্দেশ্য না, এটার জন্য আলাদা একটা কাজ দরকার, আমরা অন্য আরেকদিন সময় করবো ইনশাআল্লাহ। তবে উদ্দেশ্য হলো এটা আমাদের পাঠকদের কাছে তুলে যে ধরা কায়েদা তালিবদের কাছে বায়তআত বদ্ধ, তালিবরা কায়েদার কাছে না। তাদের মধ্যকার এই qualitative difference মাথায় রাখা জরুরি, কেননা বহুত মানুষজনের মধ্যে এখনো এই প্রবণতা বিদ্যমান যেন তালিবরা কায়েদার বায়আত বদ্ধ নিছকই এই কারণে যে তারা কায়েদার (লোকাল সদস্য বা সমর্থকদের) মতো আইডিয়ালিস্টিক না‌। অথচ উভয়ের সেন্ট্রাল সদস্যদের মধ্যে মতপার্থক্য বিদ্যমান অনেক বড় বড় বিষয়ে।

শেষকথা

আমরা যখন এই সিরিজের আলোচনা শুরু করেছিলাম তখন আমরা বলেছিলাম যে আমাদের পক্ষে সবাইকে বুঝানো সম্ভব না এবং সবাই এটা সঠিকভাবে বুঝবে এবং গ্রহণ করতে পারবে তাও না, বরং কিছু কিছু মানুষ সবসময়ই এমন থাকবে যারা এটাকে নিতে পারবে না তাদের একগুঁয়েমির কাঁদতে কিংবা অজ্ঞতার কারণে অথবা সে এতটুকু ম্যাচিউর এখনো হয়নি ইলমিভাবে, বরং তারা সবসময়ই মুখিয়ে থাকে তাদের সঙ্কীর্ণ আবেগী চিন্তাধারার পক্ষেই কোনো আওয়াজ আসছে কি না‌। যাইহোক, আশাকরি এই কাজটা পাঠকদের বুঝতে সহজ হবে যে কেন আইডিয়ালিজম ও পপুলিজমের জোয়ারের ব্যাপারে সবসময়ই আমাদের সতর্ক থাকা উচিত এবং কেন নতুনত্বের এই সময়ে আলেমদের সাথে থাকা উচিত। কারণ শেষ সময়ে আলেমরাই হবে হাদিসে বর্ণিত গুরাবা, কোনো আইডিয়ালিস্ট বা পপুলিস্ট না।

আল্লাহু আ'লাম।

Shah Waliullah and other philosophers

In this chapter, we will explore some thoughts of Imam Shah Waliullah Dehlavi, one of the most prominent scholars of the subcontinent and the grand Imam of the region. Every branch of Muslim civilization on this continent owes something to Imam Shah Waliullah, whether he is ahle-hadith, Deobandi, or Barelvi. Our goal is not to discuss his life and personality, but to examine some aspects of his philosophical framework, which he discussed in his most influential book on ilmul-Kalam and philosophy, Lamahāt and Sata’āt. We will see how he approached his philosophical works using the Akbarian stance while expressing them in Avicennian and Peripatetic styles. He also offers explanations in this book, synthesizing Pythagorean and Plotinian ideas.

My view regarding Shah Sahib is that, after Imam al-Razi, Imam al-Ghazali, Shaykh al-Akbar, and other luminaries in the Muslim world, Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi stands as the last great polymath who achieved the perfection of ‘Ilm al-Haqaiq (knowledge of realities). Whether discussing philosophers or theologians, such a level in both falsafa and kalam is rare in the Muslim world. This is why the streams of Ahl al-Hadith, Khayrabadi, and Deobandi thought all emerged from his students. It is not that no one today possesses the knowledge of realities that Shah Sahib held; rather, in terms of the acceptance (maqbuliyyat) he attained, he remains the last.

Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi has explained Wahdat al-Wujud comprehensively, but he did so differently. He did not fully apply the Akbarian formula. Instead, he explained Being and the Akbarian concept of Wujud in a Peripatetic style—primarily following Ibn Sina and later scholars (muta’akhkhirun). In doing this, he used his own distinctive terminology (such as Sakhs al-Akbar / The Great Body, Prime Origin, etc.), which Akbarian followers and Ibn Sina interpret differently. Essentially, he was a Wujudi in belief, but explained Wujudi within the Ash‘ari framework, where reason and revelation are harmoniously integrated alongside transcendental knowledge.

First, we should recognize that Shah Waliullah believed in Wahdatul Wujūd or the Unity of Being. However, the Unity of Being is not a new concept introduced by Shaykh Al Akbar Ibn Arabi; rather, it is a fundamental universal reality found in various traditions. It reflects the conditions of human beings, their reality, and the purpose of life. It does not mean that all other religions and traditions are equally true or on the same path as Islam— they can never be exactly the same. But divine religions, in their essence, are all seeking truth; they become deviant only if they reject the Muhammadan reality. The Neoplatonic understanding and the core of Ahl al-Kitab acknowledge the oneness of Allah, but they reject Muhammadan reality as the sole condition for salvation (Najāt) in the hereafter. Similarly, all human traditions aim to progress from their sensible state to a higher, suprasensible condition— moving beyond this earthbound reality to reach Allah by leaving the material world. From this perspective, all traditions are at the same stage, but differences exist due to the acceptance or rejection of Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Therefore, what is now known as Wahdatul Wujūd or the Unity of Being is not a new concept in human history. Different traditions and religions have expressed this same doctrine in various ways and explanations. Even Shaykh Al Akbar Ibn Arabi never used the term Wahdatul Wujūd in his entire work, whether in Futuhāt-al-Makkiyah or Fusūs al-Hikam, as William C. Chittick pointed out[1]. Instead, the term Wahdatul Wujūd was first used by a Shi’ite scholar who was also a philosopher well-versed in Greek philosophy, peripatetic discursive knowledge, Imām Al-Ghazāli’s reformulation of reason, and Sufi figures like Al-Junayed, Mansur Hallaj, and Bayazid Bostāmi. Ibn Sab’īn, likely the first person to describe Ibn Arabi’s Wujūd as “Wahdatul Wujūd,” did so, and this claim was confirmed by William C. Chittick in his book[2], as Syed Hossein Nasr noted. Interestingly, Shah Waliullah Dehlavi also never used the term Wahdatul Wujūd; instead, he wrote an entire outstanding work defending this doctrine without mentioning it—arguing that Wujūd, or existence, is one, and that all creation of Allah is merely a manifestation of His name.

Thus, Wahdat al-wujūd is not something new in Islamic intellectual traditions; rather, it is very evident about Allah and the existence of contingent beings, which is nothing, acknowledging that existence belongs to Allah only. All other things are manifestations of Allah, as Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn Arabi says in his view. Existence belongs to Allah, while all of the contingent beings are actually His tajalli. The same thing is expressed by Peripatetic discursive reasoning, not by all, but after the awakening of Ibn Sina, which was closer to Shaykh al-Akbar’s notion of dividing existence into two. (Ibn Arabi, instead, holds that existence is one; creation is the locus of His manifestation. I am here indicating the duality of both.) One is Wājibul Wujūd, which means its existence is necessary, while the others are Mumkin al-Wujūd, whose existence depends upon another, i.e., upon Wājibul Wujūd. The difference between them is that one is discussing existence that belongs to Allah only, while the creation is His tajalli; before His existence, our existence is nothing. After Ibn Sina, Ashaʿari philosophers divided existence into two, which is closer to Shaykh al-Akbar’s notion; Mumkīnul Wujūd is nothing before Wājibul Wujūd. Both of them agree concerning the contingent beings that they are in deficiency.

Even though Shah Waliullah Dehlavi’s father, Shah Abdur Rahim, who was one of the key figures who contributed to the composition of the Fatwa-e-Hindiyyah, famous as Fatwa-e-Ālamgirī, was in the Mughal era, about Shaykh al-Akbar’s Fusus al-Hikam, he could interpret Fusus according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. Shah Abdur Rahim was very confident that Fusus was written according to the Qur’an and Sunnah, but it is not for ordinary people who do not have the necessary requirements for this[3]. One of the founders of the Deobandi movement, Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rh.), also wrote a commentary book on Fusus named Armagān-e-Ibn Arabi, though he did not write the entire commentary but most of it, avoiding those phrases which are very vague to comprehend properly, with precaution in the first place.

Now, we have to return to our aim, which was to present to our readers how Shah Waliullah Dehlavi presents in his philosophical work the Wahdāt al-wujūd, namely existence, from Shaykh al-Akbar’s notion to Peripatetic reasoning, simultaneously how the Pythagoreans and the Neoplatonic way of explaining the One and the supreme principle or existence itself.

Pythagoreans and Neoplatonic essence in the work of Shah Waliullah

The Islamic intellectual and philosophical tradition is very extensive and wide-ranging. This is nothing unique, as it is common to every tradition—whether from the remote past or the near future. Wherever one looks, one will find a common underlying thread in them: namely, the question of existence—why we exist, the unlimited purpose of this existence, and how this existence, which is multiple in its lowest nature but necessary in its essence, actually works (namely, cosmology).

Pythagoras was one of the key figures who contributed in this regard to ontology and cosmological structure. Plato and Plotinus are deeply connected with his thought, and many people think of him as a prophet—not in the modern narrow-minded sense of framing someone as a ‘prophet’ if he possesses some extraordinary knowledge or character, but rather in the sense of Tawḥīd, as he saw the world as depending upon someone who is truly One, what we call Aḥādiyyah or the oneness of Allah. This is not our concern whether he was a prophet or not; it is secondary to us. What is most concerning is that the mathematical contributions in the later period through his disciples appear now to modern academia as ‘Pythagoreans’, a group of Pythagoras’s pupils.

The Pythagoreans defined ontology in a very interesting mathematical way. God is One— the most sacred and transcendent—yet this does not mean that He is absent from creation. Rather, His presence with contingent beings manifests in a unique way. Now we should understand how the Pythagoreans conceived of Allah as One. Let us take the example of the cardinal numbers from 1 to 9. No matter which number one chooses, it cannot be formed without 1; this shows that the One is necessary to bring other numbers into existence. For instance, 2 is actually the sum of two ones (1 + 1 = 2). If one takes the number six, then 6 divided by 2 equals 3, and 3 is 2 + 1. If one divides further, one ultimately finds 1. No matter how indefinitely [4] one chooses any number, every number carries within it the divine presence, namely the One. Without the One, all numbers are null.

This very notion is present in Shah Waliullah Dehlavi’s philosophical work Lamahāt, where he argues that:

Is it not a fact, that a mathematician when he desires can bring the cardinal numbers into his imagination? Thus, he derives from one, one and one by his reconsideration, and this is how two takes place. Again when he derives from it one and one and one by the repetition of his reconsideration, three is formed. In this way, he derives one number after another, and this is how the units and tens, hundreds and thousands are made. He then joins some of them with others according to the strength of his reason with the result that infinite numbers are formed.[5]

Here, Shah Waliullah formed a precise Pythagorean format to explain the reality of existence: how the many appear into being from the One. This is nothing other than the Unity of Existence, that successive emanation which we have indicated above. Shah Waliullah was deeply a Wujūdī scholar. By explaining that the multiplicity of the universe comes from the One, the One is the principle from which the many come into existence, without the One being affected by others. It is a metaphysical hierarchy of existence, where the One is supreme. That is why we cannot divide the number one, because it is indivisible; for this reason, it is superior to others. No matter how big the number is, it is already contained by the One. For instance, 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → … is true, but the reverse of it is not, because you cannot start with the “many.” The many cannot be sourced logically; it is just mental chaos and nothing. If one wants to change the number’s positivity, then nothing remains other than negativity. Even then, negative numbers will start with –1, –2, –3, –4, and so on. Thus, the numbers are the universal predicates which define reality as it is. This indicates only the Unity and the Unity of Existence, in the Islamic intellectual tradition what is called Wahdat al-wujūd, mostly in the Akbarian tradition.

Another interesting point that Shah Waliullah made here is that he used the word ‘derivation’ instead of ‘emanation’,[6] which is more popular in the Neoplatonic tradition. Plotinus and his successors mostly used the word emanation. They insisted that God is the supreme principle—the most high and sacred, free from every conditioned attribute. We cannot drag the Absolute Principle into conditions and definitions, because condition and definition are constraints. On the other hand, God is unconditioned and unlimited; He is the principle upon which multiplicity seeks its own existence. Therefore, when one ascribes an attribute to God, one is actually imposing a condition on Him, and a condition is by nature definite. That is why we cannot dwell in this position, which is illogical.

The word ‘emanation’ implies something separating from the source, and separation suggests distance. Thus, the word ‘emanation’ is not appropriate in this context, as it carries many errors that we should avoid by using the term ‘derivation’, as Imam Shah Waliullah has done. Even Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn Arabi was aware of this issue; that is why he used the words manifestation, self-disclosure, and sometimes unfolding. Shah Waliullah employed these terms appropriately in Lamahāt and Sataʿāt, which also eliminate the confusions that arise with the word emanation, as we have discussed above. After all, Shaykh al-Akbar is the one upon whom Shah Waliullah depended, with Peripatetic splendour.

In this semantical confusion with the word emanation, René Guénon pointed out very well by advising to avoid the use of ‘emanation’:

Multiplicity does not in fact proceed from unity, any more than it does from metaphysical Zero, or than anything at all does Mom the universal Whole, or than any possibility can be situated outside the Infinite or outside total Possibility. Multiplicity is included in primordial Unity, and it does not cease to be so by the fact of its development in manifested mode; this multiplicity belongs to the possibilities of manifestation, and cannot be con- ceived otherwise, for it is manifestation that implies distinctive existence; moreover, since it is a matter of possibilities, it is necessary that they should exist in the manner implied by their own nature.[7]

Here, René Guénon insists that if God is Infinite, then thinking of something going out of the Principle—which arises by using the word emanation—is impossible and also illogical, because multiplicity does not mean that things are separate or outside the Principle. If that were so, then the Infinite would necessarily have a boundary, which is absurd. That is why Guénon said that “multiplicity exists in primordial Unity,” which is nothing other than that God encompasses all things. That is why He is Infinite by His very nature. Total Possibility includes every possible determination. Unity, multiplicity, manifestation, non-manifestation, principles, beings—all are contained within Total Possibility. Therefore, multiplicity is not produced from somewhere outside the Infinite. Nor is unity something external to it. Both are aspects or determinations within the Infinite.

Avveicinan, Asha’ari and Transcendentalism in work of Shah Waliullah

At the beginning of this work, we maintained that Shah Waliullah Dehlavi was altogether a proper Akbarian, although his thinking also operated in diverse modes. While accepting the doctrine of Wahdat al-wujūd regarding existence, he also explained existence from a Peripatetic point of view. For example, in the ninth Lamahāt, he discussed the very concept of existence according to Ibn Sina: that the concept of existence is abstract in our mind as ‘being’, and that it corresponds to the objective reality of the being. Someone might ask whether it really corresponds to some objective reality or whether it is merely a concept of the mind. This point is legitimate because of Ibn Sina’s concept of existence: we can conceive of a thing whether it exists in external reality or not, which means we can think of its essence without its external existence. For instance, a unicorn does not really exist, although we can think of its essence. Thus, objections can arise at this point in Avicennian philosophy. Shah Waliullah Dehlavi presents the solution to this, and therefore he says that:

The Being in the external world and the Being in the Realities, is that it is an extraction in thought which has no meaning, save that it is merely represented in your brain. But its extraction is not of the kind that the imagination may invent without relying upon the true reality; but there is its true reality. And if it is there, then your saying “It exists” will be correct and your saying “It does not exist” will be incorrect. If it were not so, namely, that there is no true reality of the Being, then the contrary would be the case. What it is necessary regard is that reality.[8]

This phrase solves the problem regarding the objections to the concept of being. The concept of being is already present in our intellect: from many existent things, our intellect grasps the reality that something common and universal exists. To understand this more accurately, think of trees, people, horses, and stones—all of them share a common reality: being or existence. In this way, the intellect is already responding to something that actually exists in them. Thus, the existence of the concept in the mind is grounded in objective reality.

peculiar and subtle aspect of Ibn Sina’s philosophy regarding essence and existence, which Western philosophers did not understand properly. Our reference here is to the Scholastic theologians, especially Thomas Aquinas and his successors, who adopted elements of his philosophical framework to interpret Ibn Sina’s doctrine of essence and existence—namely, the Avicennian notion of “accidental existence,” meaning that existence is an accident added to the essence.

Sayyid Naqib al-Attas even states that, in the Western intellectual tradition, philosophy became subjective and passive instead of objective and active as a result of not properly understanding Ibn Sina’s (and Thomas Aquinas’s) doctrine of essence and existence. Consequently, through various upheavals, René Descartes arrived at subjectivism with his famous statement, “I think, therefore I am.[9]” Even the Shiʿa scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr has spoken about this misunderstanding[10]. For example, saying “the flower is white” is similar to saying “the flower exists.” It is not that the flower was first in existence and then, at some point, the colour white was added to it as an accident.

Therefore, in Ibn Sina’s proposition, existence is an accident of essence, but this accident is not the ordinary one we generally conceive. For example, when we say “the flower is white,” the whiteness already exists together with the flower; they are not separate from each other. If we consider existence itself as an “attribute” of the flower, then we cannot conceive of a flower without its existence. Existence is not merely an attribute; it is the very reality of the thing. If a flower loses its whiteness, its existence remains completely unaffected.

Thus, in Avicennian philosophy, this “accident” is not an ordinary accident in which existence is added onto essence—as Ibn Rushd and Saint Thomas Aquinas seem to have misunderstood Ibn Sina. Rather, it is a very peculiar and subtle kind of accident[11]. Shah Waliullah was well aware of this problem. Because of the lack of proper understanding of these subtle distinctions, Western academia today remains stuck in subjective phenomena and is moving increasingly toward descent and decay.

Shah Waliullah even dealt with the Aristotelian-Plotinian problem of “emanation” or the first emanation in Avicennian kalām, which refers to the First Intellect. For example, Ibn Sina, following Plotinus and Aristotelian metaphysics, presented ontological reality as a succession: the First Intellect, then the soul, then nature, and finally the world. This kind of succession is common in Peripatetic and Ashʿarī kalām. However, a problem arises here: if one thing comes out from another, then the first becomes separate and the second becomes an independent entity. This chain will continue indefinitely. Thus, the Absolute would become merely a member of this sequence instead of remaining truly Absolute.

Shah Waliullah addresses this in Lamahāt 3, as well as in his other highly influential civilizational work Al-Budūr al-Bāzighah, where he says that:

It is not as faulty imagination would have us believe, that the Ultimate Being (Wujüd) is one of the individuals of Being which comprises the individuals just as the universal comprises each of its particulars. Nay, it is not so. This is a more universal and comprehensive concept; its univer- sality and comprehensiveness transcend every other concept. Ultimate Being has encompassed the individual Being from above and from below, shrouding it from every side and eliminating the possibility of its from there.[12]

Also Shah Waliullah mentioned about this confusion in Lamahāt:

It should not be imagined that the need of the First is felt only in the termination of the possible chain of being, even though the nature of every one possessing the pos- sible nature actualised through the First stands in need of it. And this to the extent that, if an emanation eman- ates from the First, and the other emanation emanates from that emanation, then the other one will stand in need of only the first emanation, even though that first emanation stands in need of the First. Nay, it is not so. The possible nature, when it is actualised in its actuality or in its essence, stands in need of the First alone, without any intermediary between the two.[13]

Shaykh al-Akber and Shah Waliullah.

We have said that Shah Waliullah first of all depends on Shaykh al-Akbar’s notion of Wahdat al-wujūd, which is the total unity of existence—not physically, but from a metaphysical point of view. God cannot be a united physical being, because body, volume, and shape are measurable by quantitative means, which represent a very lower form of existence. On the other hand, God is the source of all existence and encompasses everything. For this reason, God cannot be identical with particular beings. As René Guénon says, the higher cannot proceed from the lower.[14]

This very confusion is present among our contemporary people who do not understand the unity of being. Due to their lack of understanding in metaphysics and basic logic, they conflate the argument with pantheism, where people think that “everything is God.” In the Akbarian sense, existence is One while all other things are nothing but sheer manifestations of Him—or, in other words, we are the loci of His manifestation. If everything were God, then everything would have to be equal. Conversely, from the Akbarian (or Aristotelian, Peripatetic, and Ashʿarī) perspective, bodily existence is a lower form of existence. The posterior depends upon the prior, so they cannot be equal.[15]

One of the most important points in the Akbarian school is that we are reflections of the Absolute Being. Shaykh al-Akbar exemplifies this through the analogy of mirror and reflection. However, Shah Waliullah Dehlavi presents this explanation in a different way—namely, how a Sufi experiences Allah the Almighty:

When a gnostic reaches this Divine Appearance Dhurwr) and looks intently at it, he sees in it only an incorporeality. The mirror does not come to his sight at all, nay even its presence does not occur to his mind. It is just like this, that when we see our form in the mirror, the mirror drops out of this observation and we become negligent of it, whether we like it or not. God forbid! If the eye were to fall upon the mirror, we should fall from the stage of knowledge to that of ignorance and from the stage of acquaintance to that of non-acquaintance. Therefore there is absolutely no mention of this mirror in the mines of knowledge (Hadirat al-Quds) lying by the side of the extensive realms of Divinity. Unavoidably, those tongues (Prophets) which are the interpreters of the Real find no other word than the Divine Manifestation, the Second Appearance and their like. Try to under- stand this point and do not speak of it again.[16]

Conclusion

We have presented this work to show that Shah Waliullah Dehlavi was deeply aware of the Muslim intellectual tradition. He was not only a Sufi and an Ashʿarī mutakallim, but also a true ʿārif billāh. His contributions in Tasawwuf, Kalām, Hadith, tajdīd in society, political reform, and other fields compel us to think that he was originally a man from the time of Imam al-Ghazali, whom Allah sent to our age with a different purpose. Here we presented some of his work, if one more extract from his various works, then he can find more deep levels things, such as Lamahāt and Sata’āt, Al-khairul kathīr etc.

Footnotes

1. William Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-‘Arabī’s Metaphysics of Imagination (Albany, NY: State University of New York

   Press, 1989), 79. Henceforth, this work will be abbreviated as SPK.

   Also, see, Ibn Arabi- Time and cosmology, Cp-5.5

2. Islamic philosophy from its origin to present, 156, State University of New York Press.

3. Anfāsul ārefēn, 23, Shah Waliullah Dehlavi Rh.

4. Here we used the world “indefinite” instead of “infinite”, what Aristotelian thinkers think calls first “affirmation” or peripatetic calls it first intellect, or, in Akbarian sense, first “ta’āyyun”, no matter how they expressed this first derivation, it exactly the duality, and we cannot say the duality as infinite, if we want to drag the infinite under duality, then it would be better to call it ‘indefinite’ rather than ‘infinite’. Indefinite means something has no end and no limits, but necessarily has a beginning. On the other hand, we cannot define the ‘infinite’ through the predicted limitations, which means every definition has some limitations, and infinite actually is delimited. See: The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus, cp.1-8.

5. Lamahāt 13

6. René Guénon also pointed out this confusion. The Multiple State of Being, Cp-5

7. Ibid

8. Lamahāt 9

9. Secularism and Islam. Cp-1.p-9

10. Islamic History from its origin to present, page, 68-70

11. Creatine and the timeless order of things, Cp-1, and page-71-72

12. Al-bdūrul Bāzigah, chapter 1,page 1

13. Lamahāt 3

14. The crisis of the modern world, chapter 6. But this argument is also present in the author’s other works. On mathematics, The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus and The Multiple State of Being.

15. See, The Multiple State of Being,Cp-17 Man and His Becoming According to Vedanta,Cp-24

16. Sata’āt 9

This article is the third in a series of two previous ones, Namely, Revolutionary Modernism and The Materialization of Islam. After the criticism of modern idealistic dogmatism in the first two parts, some things remained, which made our last discussion inevitable. So we have tried to clear up some ambiguities here.

Ideology in the Age of Modernity

In the two preceding parts, we have shown, with due precision, how certain revolutionary men have fallen into confusion and how they are proceeding in a direction fundamentally opposed to the natural bent of Islam’s thought. In those two parts, we were able to identify the problems inherent in their position; yet in the course of the discussion, we presented their “Revolution” as standing in contrast to Tradition and to the epistemological order of Islam, and we explained why their stance is essentially modern. There remains, however, a question that continues to confront us, and that is likewise raised by those who harbor an unfavorable disposition toward us: if those whose case we have been examining throughout this series are indeed in error, then what is the truth or accurate path in this regard? They imagine that we are bound to come forward with some new proposition, precisely because they are mistaken. It is at this very point that erroneous thinking begins. For when one declares a person or a method to be in error, one is naturally expected to state what, then, is correct or true. The difficulty, however, is this: if, in opposition to their confused activities about which we’re dealing here, we were to advance a new proposition, a new path or a new method, then, that proposition would not belong to the order of Tradition and the traditional current; rather, it would itself constitute yet another “newness”, a novelty that has arisen merely as a reaction against another novelty. And if we were to trace the matter back to its root, we would encounter developments that would carry us far into the history of events of considerable magnitude.

The matter may be grasped more readily if we take the example of the Ikhwān al-Muslimīn. When the Ikhwān first came into being, its activity was purely one of daʿwah. But as the Ikhwān gradually matured and began to move toward the acquisition of power in order to establish Islam, it entered the sphere of democratic politics. Later, when the Ikhwān began, in various ways, to grow weak in its position, there arose from within its own ranks another non-democratic current, which demonstrated that the Ikhwān had been in error. It is an acknowledged fact that this non-democratic current emerged by separating itself from the Ikhwān and by criticising it, and that it subsequently imparted a fresh impetus to the movement of jihad. This does not mean, however, that jihad was absent from the world until that moment; jihad had existed before, but there now began to appear within it men who were themselves “modern” in their spirit—men who, after the defeat of the democratic approach, came to understand that Islam could not be established through democratic politics. From this, it becomes clear that the Ikhwān’s democratic politics and its power-centred mentality were indeed an erroneous position. The real difficulty, however, lies elsewhere. When those who had followed the democratic current moved over to the non-democratic current—that is, to the path of jihad and armed struggle, a path that had already been taking shape through the experience of Afghanistan—they began to present jihad itself as their “ideology” and to proclaim the establishment of the Khilafah through jihad as their “ideal”. (It must be kept in mind here that when they first participated in the Afghan jihad, this notion—that ‘the establishment of Islam through jihad’ constituted the very essence of Islam—was not initially present among them all. Rather, this erroneous way of thinking gained strength among later arrivals, men who had not acquired a proper command of the knowledge of the Sharīʿah and who began to regard Islam’s sacred jihad in the same light as the armed struggles of the communists. In this manner they introduced the theory of seizing power and establishing an Islamic state, and, like the communists, they described it as a “Revolution,” setting forth various manifestos and organisational structures that stood in complete opposition to divine guidance and were purely the products of human construction resembling communist structural framework) For jihad is not itself an independent ideology or a criterion; jihad is a particular part of the complete religion of Islam. Yet when someone takes a particular part and elevates it to the status of his Ideology, that part becomes his actual position. In other words, Islam—which is the complete Deen and the comprehensive way of life—has its scope and its extent further narrowed when jihad is made into an “Ideology” and an ideal from a power-centric perspective. For Deen is a law for life, a complete path, and a total order. When, from within this complete order, a particular part is singled out and made into an ideology, the original completeness is reduced to narrowness: what was comprehensive and extensive is rendered narrow and constricted, because the individual, by diminishing completeness, has set up narrowness as his Ideology rather than the fullness and breadth that properly belong to it.

Now, if we consider the matter further, we see that one section of the Ikhwān, owing to its power-centered mentality, withdrew from democratic politics and subsequently adopted armed struggle and jihad as the means for establishing the Khilafah. In other words, what had formerly been democratic now became non-democratic (their power-centric tendency). Although this represents a deviation within Islam, since the principal objectives of Islam have never centred upon power. The real problem arises when armed struggle and jihad are regarded as the means for establishing the Khilafah and are themselves proclaimed as the “ideology”( behind which is nothing but the desire for power). Behind this position, the underlying intention remains the same: rule, or “power.”

Difference between Ideology and Deen

There exist structural differences between the “ideal” or Ideology and Deen. For when one speaks of an ideal or an Ideology, one refers, in accordance with the modern phenomenon, to that which Ideology ordinarily represents: a systematic framework of thought constructed within the human mind, a body of political activity conditioned by historical and social circumstances, a collective assemblage of narrative construction and elements of collective thought, and a dependence of truth and reality upon certain determinate mental principles. It is something that arrives as a reaction against another doctrine or way of thinking, something partial and narrow in contrast to completeness, and one of its essential characteristics is the “activism” that revolves around Ideology itself. For this reason, within ideology, truth is always measured and verified in connection with power and dominion, with social engineering and social activity, with worldly progress, and with political mobilization. In other words, whenever one adopts something as an ideal and as an Ideology, one binds oneself to something that pertains to human subjectivity and not to anything that stands above it in supremacy and elevation. Ideology invariably elevates subjective phenomena to a position of supremacy and confines truth, which possesses an objective station, within the limits of subjective passivity; and it requires no great effort to recognise that this tendency is a disease and a symptom of modernity. Therefore, whenever these so-called revolutionaries speak of revolution and the establishment of rule, they bring Islam down from its comprehensive scope and its elevated character and confine it within the narrow and constricted domain of politics. As a result, they function—and continue to function—within certain lower subjective notions, in the manner of those afflicted by the disease of modernity: the propagation of revolutionary ideals, the acquisition of strength, the seizure of power, and the establishment of rule. This is manifestly not the structure of Islam, but rather the structure proper to socialists and communists.

Since the rise of modernity, and for the sake of social and political diversity, liberalism has permitted communist and similar ideological modes of thought to persist, so that men might understand the importance of “different” opinions within society. Yet communism and liberalism are the two hands of modernity; neither of them upholds any universal or metaphysical truth. Both are materialist in character, and both are political and individualistic, which is the opposite of Islam.

On the other hand, the claim of Deen is submission, justice, and order, and the conjunction of the path and of existence with the sole Reality and with true truth. Deen does not demand merely ʿaqīdah and belief; rather, Deen demands the elevation of man’s spiritual being, righteous action, spirituality, spiritual connection to the truth, inner purification, and steadfast perseverance upon the path of Transcendental reality. In other words, Deen binds man to ultimate existence, to true reality, and to ḥaqīqah. In relation to Allah, it is objective. Allah has never linked Deen to power. Had He done so, He would have commanded Mūsā (upon him be peace) to overturn the throne o,f Pharaoh’s power, He would have commanded Yūsuf (upon him be peace) to declare rebellion against the king by the force of prophethood, and He would have commanded the Prophet (ﷺ) first to secure sole power in Arabia through the strength of the Hāshimī lineage and only afterwards to bring everyone to Tawḥīd. Yet Allah did none of these things. The establishment of a system of rule (Khilafah) in Islam comes two or three stages later. Islam offers something greater and higher than this, and that is spirituality: knowing and recognising Allah and attaining nearness to Him. This, indeed, is ʿibādah, for the sake of which Allah created man. Politics, power, strength, and systems of rule are not the fundamental maqāsid of Islam. Islam first teaches īmān; thereafter, it gives importance to ʿilm, and alongside ʿilm, it stresses the purification and purity of the individual, which connects the servant to Allah and manifests the true reality of His knowledge. When the servants persist in these works, Allah Most High grants them power, as He has stated in Sūrah al-Nūr and as we discussed in the first part. In other words, those so-called revolutionaries who are afflicted by the disease of modernity have nothing higher to offer to any people. Rather, they refine communist slogans after their own fashion and construct a framework of “Islamic revolution” in which they present nothing fundamental, such as ʿilm, rūḥāniyyah, or spirituality. Instead, in opposition to the communists, they have fashioned only vague and defective slogans: “Islamic”, “daʿwah, iʿdād and jihad”. Daʿwah for what? For the establishment of a system of rule. Iʿdād upon what? For jihad. Jihad for what? For power. By thus reducing Islam to the model of political modernity, they too have become part of modernity and an important member of it, for they function on the same level as the communists and the other idealistic revolutionaries of modernity. The only difference lies in the so-called “Ideology”.

But here someone may ask: does Islam then have no system of rule and no Khilafah, or are we ourselves denying it? No. Although we have already answered this question in the preceding part, it is still necessary to state clearly once more that Allah Most High did not send man to establish a system of rule. This is not among the principal objectives of the Sharīʿah. Even in the time of any prophet from Ādam (upon him be peace) onwards, it was never the principal matter. Rather, Allah Most High has made the system of rule conditional upon the observance of Deen—that is, upon those very demands of Deen which we have set forth above. This is what Allah has stated in Sūrah al-Nūr (55). It is therefore an established matter that the Khilafah comes from Allah, while the task of the believers is to remain devoted to ʿibādah. This does not mean in any way that they are to turn away from the Khilafah. On the contrary, Allah has joined ʿibādah to the Khilafah as its condition. And if ʿibādah, ʿilm, and tasawwuf—according to the classical tradition—are absent in anyone, such persons will never be able to establish Islam. Because of their deficiency in these two matters, they will, at one time or another, fall into confusion, just as we have seen in the case of other modern idealists—for example, the Ikhwān, Jamāʿat-e-Islāmī, and groups of similar thought.

Therefore, if I were to advance yet another new proposition, we should once again be initiating one more error. What is required here is not the search for novelty or “newness” to resolve the problem, but rather the return of our thought to that point in the past where the error first arose, and the establishment of a path in accordance with the Islamic turāth and Tradition. The solution of the problem does not lie in seeking “newness,” but always in returning to Tradition and to the past. For whenever one proposes something new in opposition to a confused doctrinal framework or disorder—something that claims to refute that confused thought—one is in reality creating yet another error, which in the future will be shown to be erroneous by someone else with respect to the position one has proposed and invented. And this process will continue indefinitely, yet no solution will ever be reached; instead, new and ever-new fitnah will be generated, which represents not order but disorder and chaos. This is the very tendency of modernity: whenever it fails to find a solution to a problem, it forgets the matter and thinks only of advancing in accordance with the philosophy of “progress,” but it never thinks of returning backward or of returning to Tradition. And this, naturally, is nothing other than an expression of its “progressive” mentality and tendency; yet it cannot say toward what direction it is advancing or progressing. For this reason, we do not wish to entangle ourselves in anything through a new proposition that would trap us in the snare of the progressive thought of modernity. Rather, we stand always in opposition to progressive thought as regressive, conservative, and attached to the ancient (Qurʾān 4:59). In antiquity and within the tradition of Islam, there exists for us the path and the means for the establishment of Deen. Yet the disease of modernity has today so completely overtaken us that even those who claim to stand for Islam think of the Islamic dimension in a progressive manner. That is to say, in the hundred years since the fall of the Khilafah, the “elders” (by which is meant nothing other than the scholars and the traditional current, who have been the object of their vile attacks) have been unable to do anything; therefore, we must invent something “new” and modern. The difficulty, however, lies precisely here: newness itself is the root of the problem and of destruction (as the ḥadīth states: “Every innovation is misguidance”). And in place of Deen, the so-called “ideal and idealistic revolution” and the replacement by Ideology present before us an “Islamic progressiveness.” In other words, Islam is being claimed within the framework of modernity itself. They are forever seeking newness and alternatives, but never Tradition and the traditional method. Consequently, in their logic, the past is in some way “bad” and the future in some way “good.” The notion that ‘the past was good and the future bad’ is itself a modern phenomenon. Before the Renaissance—which was for the Europeans a period of disorder and stagnation—they, through the Renaissance and through revolution, made their future more “beautiful and advanced” (that is, they progressed), and therefore they believe that in this same manner they will continue to make it “more” beautiful and “more” good, in an indefinite forward movement that has no end; and it remains unclear toward what they are advancing. On the other hand, the classical Islamic current and the Islamic tradition have always viewed the past (Tradition) in the opposite manner to modernity. Metaphysically, the past is always beautiful, and the future is always uncertain. If we go backward, we arrive at the various periods of the Khilafah; if we go further back, we reach the Tābiʿūn; if we go further back, we reach the age of the Tābiʿūn and the Ṣaḥābah; if we go further back, we reach the age of the Prophet (ﷺ); and if we go yet further back to Ādam (upon him be peace), we behold human civilisation to which the angels prostrated by the command of Allah. If we go further back, we enter the world of spirits where Allah took from us the Shahādah that we would accept Him as our Lord; and if we go yet further back, we return once more to that state of connection with the sole mercy and reality of Allah—that is, to our non-existence and to the sole presence of the Being of Allah Most High, which constitutes the purpose of the creation of human civilization: namely, to attain nearness to the true Reality and to return to Him completely.

Therefore, our objection and our critique are not intended to advance any new proposition. Rather, their purpose is to issue a call to return to the ancient and to Tradition. Those who are afflicted by the poison of modernity are forever demanding new propositions and alternatives, and every new proposition or alternative brings with it newness, and newness is “progressive,” not regressive. What must be set before them is that the solution lies within the traditional (islamic) current and within antiquity, and not within newness or “progress.” It must also be shown how ḥaqq functions in this age and how Deen is preserved and protected—something that has already become sufficiently clear to our readers.

We shall now proceed, step by step, to examine how ḥaqq functions within society and how it preserves itself against every false new progressive thought—what, precisely, is the correct, traditional, and heritage-bearing current for the establishment of Deen.

Islamic Epistemology and the Traditional Current

There is no doubt that politics and the concept of the Khilafah hold a position of great importance within Islam; indeed, they are not merely a concept but constitute a part and a ruling that is obligatory. The difficulty, however, lies in the fact that the entire world has been afflicted, in one way or another, by the contagion of modernity, and that modernity is eager to sever every religious and social matter, as well as the various genres of knowledge, from their proper stations—and in this it has achieved a success that is nothing short of astonishing. Islam, on the other hand, does not regard religious and social matters as fragmented in the manner that modernity does—for example, through secularism. Modernity has divided human life into personal, social, and political spheres and has further subdivided them into numerous levels, with the result that man comes to imagine that his religious life can be separated from his political and social life. Islam, by contrast, regards all of these as a single, complete whole and structure, and not as fragmented, isolated, and disparate entities.

Therefore, just as Islam regards the personal, social, and political life of man with equal seriousness, in precisely the same manner it regards man’s spiritual being, the rūḥ, with even greater importance. Indeed, the greatest matter is that it is this rūḥāniyyah (روحانية) itself which distinguishes Islam from materialism, as we have already set forth in our earlier discussion. Consequently, whenever someone demands the establishment of an Islamic state or speaks of an Islamic revolution, the knowledge of I’lm (نور) and the epistemology of Islam necessarily become the principal concern. For when prophethood was granted to the Prophet (ﷺ), Allah Most High did not command him to demand the establishment of the Khilafah or an Islamic system of rule. Rather, He fashioned people of īmān, of ʿamal, and of ʿilm (علم). It is for this reason that, throughout the ten years of prophethood in Makkah, the Prophet (ﷺ) taught them nothing but īmān and ʿilm, which later played a foundational role in the Madīnan period in establishment of Khilafah. Therefore, when any individual or organisation speaks of Islamic revolution and the establishment of the Sharīʿah, their very first task must be to acquire detailed knowledge of the Islamic Sharīʿah in all its dimensions and structures, as well as of epistemological and spiritual matters. Yet here an even more important point arises, and that is Islamic epistemology itself—namely, ādāb (آداب).

Adāb in Islamic epistemology

Some people imagine that, within the epistemological current of Islam, ādāb means nothing more than politeness. Naturally, ādāb does signify politeness and akhlāq; however, when the knowledge of the Islamic Sharīʿah is in question, the meaning of this term is not confined to politeness. Rather, it constitutes a complete structure whose hierarchy (ترتيب) and succession lead the seeker from the lower levels to the higher. When someone desires to acquire knowledge of the Islamic Sharīʿah, he must first purify his inner being from every form of impurity. For oil and milk can never be mixed; and since the knowledge of the Sharīʿah is nūr (نور), divine guidance, and the Kalām of Allah—the most sacred reality in this world—there can be no doubt regarding the degree of purity required in the vessel that is to contain this nūr of knowledge (I’lm). If such mixing were ever to occur, the knowledge would no longer remain in its proper station. Thus, ādāb means placing every form of knowledge and every branch of learning in accordance with the condition and rank of the individual. When someone intervenes in the epistemological branches of Islam without the requisite spiritual and intellectual capacity, and without proper discipline and ādāb (آداب), this constitutes an act of zulm upon both the individual and society; and this zulm in turn gives rise to various forms of misguidance and fitnah. It is for this reason that we have stated that ādāb is not limited to mere politeness and akhlāq. Rather, ādāb consists precisely in placing every form of knowledge in its proper station and in its proper vessel. If an individual, lacking this ādāb and the necessary qualification, reaches out toward the higher levels, then, owing to the absence of qualification and discipline, erroneous modes of thought will inevitably arise within him thereafter.

This is the tendency of modernity: for modernity, knowledge is merely a “fact” or “information” connected to and confined within worldly matters. In Islamic epistemology, by contrast, knowledge or ʿilm (علم) is not merely information or fact. Rather, it is a means of ascending through universal and spiritual levels of succession. For this reason, the acquisition of the knowledge of the Sharīʿah always requires continuous training, discipline (تربية), and ādāb (آداب), and this obligation is even more stringent for those who claim to work for the establishment of the Islamic Sharīʿah. When ādāb, discipline, and ʿilm are united, there is added to them ḥikmah (حكمة) and fahm (فهم). The true meaning of ḥikmah is wisdom, or sapiential wisdom, while fahm signifies deep comprehension, insight, and the capacity for subtle discernment. Through these, the individual is able to grasp the true nature of the knowledge of the Sharīʿah, to apply it correctly, and to perceive its spiritual dimension. When ʿilm is joined to ḥikmah and fahm, it becomes nūr (نور), light, as the ḥadīth states; and it is this nūr that keeps one steadfast upon ḥaqq. The acquisition of ʿilm or knowledge is not in itself difficult; yet ḥikmah and fahm are the essential matter, and these can never be attained without isnād (إسناد) and without an ustādh, nor can they be attained without spirituality and akhlāq. Modern knowledge is empiricist knowledge—fact and information. What distinguishes the knowledge of the Islamic Sharīʿah from modern fact-based and information-based knowledge is precisely its ḥikmah and fahm. And ḥikmah and fahm are never acquired independently; rather, they are attained through nearness to Allah, through the purification of the spiritual being, and through both the outward and the spiritual isnād (إسناد).

Before prophethood, when the Prophet (ﷺ) used to engage in murāqabah and contemplation in the Cave of Ḥirāʾ, what exactly was he contemplating? At that time no revelation had yet descended upon him, and prophethood had not yet been granted to him. Can we then say—God forbid—that the Prophet (ﷺ) was mistaken? Rather, Allah Most High was preparing him as a necessary preparation for what He intended to bestow. Mūsā (عليه السلام), before receiving the Tawrāt, had to spend forty days preparing himself on Mount Sinai. This is no ordinary matter. The knowledge connected to revelation in Islam demands proper ādāb (آداب) and discipline. If someone lacks this discipline, he may still gather information about the Islamic Sharīʿah, but that knowledge will not transform his inner spiritual world. Consequently, sooner or later—because he lacks ḥikmah (حكمة) and fahm (فهم)—he will distort that knowledge and thereby commit zulm upon the Muslims, even if he himself remains a Muslim. In other words, the knowledge connected to revelation, when approached through proper ādāb and discipline, does not merely impart information; at the same time it elevates the person toward higher levels of rūḥāniyyah (روحانية), while isnād (إسناد) protects that knowledge from every form of falsehood and confusion.

This is why those who, outside the isnād of the Islamic Sharīʿah and without any proper qualification or sanad, have tried to work on Islamic matters have ended up opening the doors to major fitnah, even though that was never their intention. Knowledge in this domain requires ādāb and discipline, whereas in modernity knowledge can be taken without any need for ādāb or discipline, because it does not connect the individual to any universal reality nor point toward any unitary truth. In the Islamic Sharīʿah, however, isnād preserves the individual’s knowledge by linking it back to the Prophet (ﷺ) and thereby connects the person to him. Yet external knowledge and external isnād alone are not sufficient unless the person is also connected to the Prophet (ﷺ) in a spiritual and rūḥānī manner. If someone possesses external knowledge and isnād but lacks this spiritual connection to the Prophet (ﷺ), there is no harm in taking knowledge from him on Sharīʿah matters, but such knowledge does not represent the fullness of ʿilm (علم). This is why tasawwuf was recognised across all the madhhabs, including the Ḥanbalī school, from which great Sufis emerged, among them ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī (رحمه الله). This fact alone exposes the inconsistency of those who today claim the Ḥanbalī label while rejecting tasawwuf.

Necessary requirement to establish Islam

Therefore, whenever someone claims to work for the establishment of Islamic rule and the Sharīʿah, one must first examine whether he is truly an ʿālim in the matters of the Islamic Sharīʿah. If he is not, then—even if he is not deliberately lying—one must still say that he is unqualified. Those who possess emotion but lack the necessary qualification for establishing the Sharīʿah are sentimental and dogmatic idealists. This is why, in the earlier parts, we described these unqualified and uncredentialed “revolutionaries” as Pseudo-fundamentalists. For the establishment of Islam requires the knowledge of the Sharīʿah, and the knowledge of the Sharīʿah requires ādāb; and ādāb, discipline, and isnād in turn require an ustādh and a scholarly murabbī through whom the individual can be properly trained, just as the Ṣaḥābah were trained through the Prophet (ﷺ). Anyone who cannot fulfil these conditions remains, at best, merely emotional or, at worst, hypocritical. To make this clearer, we may take a mathematical example—since from the very beginning our discussion has proceeded from a metaphysical standpoint, and in the classical kalām tradition metaphysics stands at the highest level of knowledge.

This is fundamental logic: zero can never produce any value on its own. If someone’s knowledge of the Sharīʿah stands at zero, how can any real value come out of it? For if a person wants to present himself in the domain of the Islamic Sharīʿah as a², he must first pass through proper discipline and ādāb (آداب), which bring b² into his being. Only then can one expect a meaningful result that actually produces value, just as in a² + b² = c². Now, if someone lacks both a² and b², he can never produce value, even if he is a believing Muslim. The qualification for producing value simply does not exist in him. Therefore, in this epistemological framework, his value remains zero. And when a person’s value is zero, he can never bring forth anything new or substantial, even if he possesses ordinary knowledge of the Sharīʿah in the way that is common in today’s age of information and data.

We may take a² and b² as corresponding to ādāb and rūḥāniyyah (روحانية). When these two are absent, a person may know a great deal about the Sharīʿah, yet his actual position remains zero. This absence is precisely what characterises modernity and its epistemological structure. Modern knowledge is material and confined within the limits of this world and individual existence; it does not uphold any universal or metaphysical truth. Instead, it remains nothing more than “information,” which only makes people more deeply materialistic. In metaphysics, zero represents a state that always stands for chaos and disorder, and for horizontal functioning. Anything that functions horizontally is, by that very fact, cut off from the transcendental being and from the supreme principle. Zero can only have value when it stands behind some valuable number. Ordinarily, zero represents nothing and possesses no metaphysical validity. It acquires value only in the domain of quantity and calculation—for example, in the number ten. It always draws its value from standing behind some meaningful number. Nothing valuable, whether quantitative or qualitative, ever arises from zero itself.

Those who have confined Islam within the sphere of politics, or who treat the knowledge of the Islamic Sharīʿah in the same way modern knowledge and information are treated, are essentially handling Sharīʿah knowledge as if it were modern, information-based knowledge. In other words, they claim authority in matters of the Islamic Sharīʿah without any proper qualification. At the same time, they themselves have no real connection to the traditional current through which they could situate themselves in opposition to modernity. Instead, while reducing Islam to the political level within the modern system, they have also modernised the knowledge of the Sharīʿah itself—absorbing it through technology, without any teacher or ustādh. This gives them information, but it does not give them ḥikmah (حكمة) and fahm (فهم). Because ḥikmah and fahm are missing, and because ādāb (آداب) is absent, the knowledge of the Sharīʿah in their hands has been reduced to the level of modern fact-based knowledge. It has been severed from ḥikmah, fahm, and divine wisdom, and has ceased to be real ʿilm (علم). We see the same thing among many Western scholars who write about Islam. They can study and discuss Islamic matters as facts and information, but they cannot accept Islam itself, because they never encounter it as divine guidance and wisdom. As a result, there are countless people today who know the Sharīʿah yet do not truly know what Islam is. This is why those so-called revolutionaries always represent the mathematical zero. And zero, when it is not subordinate to any real value, invariably brings chaos and disorder in its wake. In other words, whoever accepts their leadership—today or tomorrow—will eventually face disappointment or remain trapped in confusion.

Sharīʿah places great importance upon isnād (إسناد), upon spiritual contact and proximity. Che Guevara, Lenin, Mao, Gramsci—their thought and their “revolutions” had no connection whatsoever with divine knowledge (علم). What they produced was the fruit of communist manifestos and of their own intellectual capacity as human beings—something refined through the continuous examination and selection of ideas that belonged entirely to man’s “own” thinking. It was much like what happens in scientific research, where information or facts are cross-checked in various ways to make them more reliable. Therefore, when these people adopt modern revolutionary and leftist theories in order to acquire knowledge of the Islamic Sharīʿah, and when they treat that knowledge in the same way they treat facts and information—detached from ḥikmah (حكمة) and fahm (فهم)—they are essentially aligning themselves with modernity in opposition to Tradition. For the tendency to stand against the traditional current goes back to the individualistic man of the Renaissance and to Protestant ways of thinking. These currents were always opposed to Tradition and sought to interpret religion and divine law through their own limited and narrow intellectual observation, without any qualification, without uṣūl, and without proper standards. We see the same mentality at work among these so-called revolutionaries. Instead of acquiring qualification through the traditional path, they oppose that path and, in the name of establishing a system of rule, they distort Islam by explaining it through their own idealistic notions. They reduce Islam from its fundamental concept of ʿibādah and confine it to nothing more than an idealistic, power-centred religion—as we can clearly see in what their so-called “pure ʿaqīdah” shaykh does.(MIAW)

Concluding remarks

There remains one point before us. Does Tradition in itself mean ḥaqq? Within the traditional current itself, scholars have offered criticism on various matters. It must be stated clearly that Tradition does not automatically equal ḥaqq. Even within tradition there exist various confusions and differences of opinion. What I have meant throughout the traditional current and Tradition is a return to principles (Shari’āh)—a return to the foundational principles that remain the same across all ages and times. A perfect historical reversal is never possible. What we can do is strive with all our strength to remain as close as possible to those foundational principles. Whether the question concerns an Islamic system of rule or the propagation of Deen within society, we must always proceed in accordance with those principles.

Through this work we have shown that the so-called revolutionaries have in no way met the standards of the classical tradition. On the contrary, they are clearly ignorant and unqualified in matters of Islam and the Islamic Sharīʿah, and they are deeply afflicted by the disease and contagion of modernity. They have not understood Islam from within the classical current; rather, they have understood it through the idealistic concepts of modernity. Therefore, we cannot expect from them any greater service to Islam, for it is Allah’s Sunnah that He has never accepted service to Islam from the unqualified. We are not distant from the political dimension of Islam or from the concept of the Khilafah. The purpose of this writing was to clarify that the present trend of “revolution,” and “fundamentalism” is in no real sense fundamental, but rather Pseudo-fundamentalist (from Bangladesh perspective). For according to traditional principles, they are neither qualified to make such a claim nor do they possess the knowledge of the Sharīʿah required of such people. Instead, the deficiency in ʿilm (علم), ādāb (آداب), and rūḥāniyyah (روحانية) among them is widespread, and they are deeply infected by the disease of modernity—so much so that they themselves fail to realise that by sidelining Tradition and traditional principles, they have themselves begun to function within modernity. If they wish to escape this condition, they must necessarily return to the traditional current. For, as we have shown above, zero can never produce value.

Some may ask whether history offers any example consistent with our position. The answer is open to all. All the movements that arose for the rise of Islam up to the Ottoman Khilafah are consistent with our thought. And if we seek a clearer and more fully explained example, no brighter instance exists than Amīr al-Hind Shāh Walīullāh Muḥaddith Dehlawī (رحمه الله). It was he who first gave direction and a well-ordered plan for the establishment of a Khilafah in the Indian subcontinent modelled upon prophethood. The Taliban of today are acting upon the plan of this great leader. Their far-sighted vision was never limited to five or ten years; rather, it extended across centuries. Sitting five hundred years ago, he made plans for five hundred years later. Yet he never confined Islam to the political level for the sake of the Khilafah, nor did he mechanise or materialise Islam by excluding tasawwuf—as today’s so-called revolutionaries do. On the contrary, he was among the highest-ranking Ṣūfīs of the subcontinent, and at the same time a master of kalām, a muḥaddith, and the founding figure of the Deoband movement. In the generation after him, during the time of Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Sayyid Aḥmad Barelwī and Shāh Ismāʿīl Shahīd were deeply rooted in the Ṣūfī tradition, yet they were also mujāhidīn. What more need be said of Shaykh al-Hind Maḥmūd Ḥasan Deobandī? He was the central figure of the Reshmī Rumāl movement. What I wish to establish here is that all of them were simultaneously Ṣūfīs and mujāhidīn, and all of them possessed a very high degree of rūḥāniyyah (روحانية). (Today we see some “revolutionaries” selectively invoking Shāh Ṣāḥib and Shāh Ismāʿīl to support their diseased and materialised understanding of Islam and their revolutionary ideas. Yet these great men were complete Ṣūfī mujaddids. Those who stood with them were all scholars, and they were murīds of Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. Shāh Ismāʿīl Shahīd himself wrote in detail on the various stations of wilāyah and tasawwuf. These so-called revolutionaries present them selectively, reducing their sacred jihad to their own narrow and limited “jihad”—which is nothing but the acquisition of political power—whereas their purpose was never merely political.)

Because they were trained according to the principles of the traditional current, they were all capable of producing value. Their example corresponds to the mathematical form (a + b)², which is able to produce value—and they did produce it. Today, because of the Deoband movement, the light of Islam has spread across the entire subcontinent, and the Taliban have established Islamic rule. When some people today, owing to contemporary political instability, blame the scholars, they themselves are extremely weak in ʿilm and fahm and have been influenced by the harmful thinking of these so-called revolutionaries. They judge ḥaqq and bāṭil by political success or failure. Some even use the example of Afghanistan to attack the scholars of Bangladesh without hesitation. (Unfortunately, we also find certain scholars among those who reduce Islam to this political level.) Yet victory has nothing to do with geographical boundaries. It is not necessary for Islam to achieve victory everywhere and at the same time, nor will Islam always remain victorious. For victory and defeat are political concepts, whereas ḥaqq and bāṭil are universal concepts. Before the Day of Judgement, ḥaqq will be defeated and bāṭil will triumph. People will accept the leadership of the ignorant and will begin turning to them in Islamic matters instead of to the scholars. (We see this now: in the tide of populism, these so-called revolutionaries and fundamentalists—whose value is zero—are receiving leadership from the ignorant. And zero always represents chaos, disorder, instability in the cosmic order, and fitnah.) In this way Islam will gradually be distorted. The scholars will become the true “ghurabāʾ” in opposition to populist ignoramuses. Gradually all the scholars will be removed, until a time comes when Allah Most High will once again take the Qurʾān away. The pages of the muṣḥafs will turn white, and in this manner the Day of Judgement will begin.

This, then, is the final word. Ḥaqq does not always remain victorious. Yet the temporary waning of bātil or falsehood never proves that the victory of bāṭil has become a universal truth. Even after its temporary defeat, ḥaqq remains ḥaqq. This is the universal truth. Therefore, the purpose of this writing is not to turn everyone away from the present unhealthy, populist, and confused idealistic excitement—that is something we can never achieve. Rather, our purpose is that if we can turn even a few people away from populism, that much will be sufficient for us, alḥamdulillāh.

Reality is that Imam al-Ghazali knew about the limitations of discursive knowledge and reasoning, which Kalāmi Ualamā accepted to defend Tawheed against Mu'tazila. But, when Asha'ari ulama excessively depend on reasoning, they fall into a trap where Mu'tazila was trapped. But, it doesn't mean that Asha'ari ulamā were wrong in their discursive reasoning. But it is the latter Mutakhkhirūn, who adopted Asha'ari heritage and built their new epistemological way of thinking, a new methodology, a new framework. Earlier, Mutaqaddimūn wanted to prove existence through reasoning, while the latter Mutakhkhirūn built their entire philosophical framework acknowledging One and the supreme being, whose existence is necessary. So the difference is far from the previous one.

And from this point, Islamic epistemology, Islamic politics, and social infrastructure began to move like a unicorn. But some time later, Imam Al-Ghazāli wrote Incoherence of the Philosophers. It was not written for the end of the Falsafa and Kalām in the Muslim world, but this book changed the direction of the discursive reasoning and renewed the path of Kalām and Falsafa through acknowledging the limitations of reason and capabilities of that while moving into purification of the heart, removing ego and self to comprehend and understand the truth as it is. This is the whole point, where Imām Al-Ghazāli, being Mutakallim, was dominant, and influenced the Mutakhkhirūn mostly, and later Transcendental Metaphysical ulamā, from Ayn-al-Kūdāt to Shah Waliullah Dehlavi.

After Ibn Rushd's criticism of Tahāfut of Imam Al-Ghazāli, Kalām and falsafa were almost at the end. But another phase began in the Islamic intellectual milieu of Transcendental Metaphysics. Imam Al-Ghazāli's influence was the most in this phase also, but not like Shaykh Al Akbar. Thus, Ayn-al-Kūdāt Hamdāni, Shaykh Al Akbar Ibn Arabi, and other philosophers, who combined the Kalām and Falsafa with

Transcendental knowledge (Sufi Metaphysics), all of their work was somehow influenced by Imam al-Ghazali. Imam al-Ghazali is the first person I think who understood the limitations of reason, and moved to purifying the heart to know the truth as it is. That's why Ayn-al-Kūdāt Hamdāni says that what he says about the reality is already present in Imam Al-Ghazāli's writing scatteredly.

Imam al-Ghazali criticised philosophers while working with Asha'ari's heritage of reasoning. He changed the flow of reasoning from excessive dependence on reason to a combination of reasoning and Kashf, and unveiling truth. Reason and discursive knowledge always lead one to passivity, where the 'self' and 'ego' are very powerful and, sometimes, truth from discursive reasoning becomes subjective while the truth is actually always objective. Thus, ego and self are the most powerful adversaries of the Unity and Tawheed. Through "ego' and 'self' multiplicity exists, which differs from one another in every direction, that's why Ego and self should be erased from our inner dimension to understand the truth as it is.

In the Influence of Imam Al-Ghazāli, we can see the later school of Transcendental Metaphysics. No matter, he is Shi'a or Sunni. But it is another thing that in transcendental metaphysics, Akbarian's influence is huge and unavoidable. One of the prominent scholars of the Subcontinent, Imām Shah Waliullah Dehlavi, is a shining example of this. He adopted Shaykh Al Akbar's Wujūdi concept, simultaneously explained Wujūd thorough peripatetic discursive way. From this perspective, we cannot say Falsafa and Kalām ended after Imam Al-Ghazāli; the beginning of its end started after Ibn Rushd, while Imam al-Ghazali changed the flow of reason from subjective reasoning to a subject and objective paradigm, meaning superiority of Kashf and unveiling over reason.

Those who accuse Shaykh Al-Akbar of believing in pantheism didn't understand what pantheism is and what Wujūd means in the Akbarian tradition. In Akbarian philosophy, existence is one, but the real existence is Allah Himself, and the contingent existence is the locus of His manifestation or the manifestation of His mercy to contingent beings.

When Shaykh Al-Akber says that, contingent beings are the locus of manifestation, it doesn't mean that the essence of God is manifesting in contingent beings, rather, God’s essence can't be contingent, as he is infinite, and contingent beings are finite and nothing like him. For this reason, this is the Mercy of Allah and the Jalāl of him to contingent beings that He bestows existence upon nonexistence. In this, way, Allah is completely separated, transcendent from the creation and the contingent being.

What pantheism is that, they think all is God, which means, everything is a part of God, that's why all of them are God. Sometimes, it is analogies to immanenism with some distinction. Believing in the manifestation of God and thinking everything is God are two different things. When Akbarian says the contingent beings are manifestations of Him, in saying this, they are already classified as two separate existences, one of existence by itself, and the other depends upon the first. By doing this, Akbarian tradition already represents the transcendence of Allah from its creation and the separation of the contingent being from His zāt.

Thus, Akbarian doesn't think that we are 'benign' in the sense that Allah himself is. He is self-sufficient while we are depending upon his mercy. If we say, there's tow being of existence, then sometimes we are saying that existence is two, which means the existence of God and the existence of other parallel or in a similar plane,

In this respect, it would be Shirk. This is the whole point, why Akbarian doesn't say that existence is two; instead, they say existence is one, indicating Allah, while we're the manifestation of Allah's name and his mercy, that's why we've acquired existence from nonexistence and our existence is nothing to His existence, and that Akbarian says existence belongs to only One, not to many. The existence of contingent beings is mortal, on the other hand, the existence of Allah has no beginning and no end, timeless and infinite.

This separation of existence into two, we can see this in Ibn Sina's articulation, namely, Wājibul wujūd and Mumkīnul Wujūd. Which also clarifies the existence in to tow Standard, insisting that Wājibul Wujūd is something that exists in itself, i.e, necessary existence, while on the other hand Mumkīnul Wujūd is, whose existence is dependent on the first (possible existence), namely Wājibul wujūd. This is the duality upon which all of existential philosophy is dependent.

The problem arises when people without a deep understanding of the Kalām and reasoning, want to capture these things. Therefore, when Shaykh Al-Akbar says that all existence is one, or, that existence is one, the ignorant people are inclined to think that he's saying all things are God. This is where misunderstandings start and people are

accusingly saying he makes disbelief. While, Shaykh Al-Akbar exemplifies the truth behind our beliefs and the ontological structure of this universe and the hierarchy of existence in contingent beings.

In recent days, much has been said regarding Maulana Mawdudi’s notion of ḥākimiyyah. Yet it must be affirmed that this terminology, forged in explicit opposition to the modern conception of sovereignty, represents a distinctly contemporary construct. The idea of Ḥākimiyyah, understood as a separate doctrinal-political category, is foreign to the classical Islamic tradition; it did not exist therein as an independent principle. It constitutes, in essence, one of the more characteristic attempts to politicize Islam within the mental framework of modernity.

This does not imply that the question of Islamic governance was absent from the classical perspective—far from it. The real difficulty with Political Islam lies elsewhere: its entire conceptual edifice is modern. Whoever adopts this framework inevitably absorbs, whether actively or passively, the very characteristics of modernity it claims to oppose.

Even if one accepts the classification of Tawḥīd elaborated by Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (may God have mercy on him), it remains necessary to acknowledge that the modern concept of Ḥākimiyyah derives from a horizon entirely foreign to tradition. In the classical formulations, the unity of Allah’s Essence, the unity of His Attributes, and the doctrine of qadr were expounded with great depth. Within these, the principle of Divine Lordship and Command (ḥākimiyyah) was already implicitly and fully contained. It required no separate doctrinal elaboration, for it was lived and understood as an inseparable dimension of the acknowledgment of Allah as Rabb.

The problem with Mawdudi’s terminology arises precisely when this principle is isolated and politicized—when it is transformed into a political slogan and made the basis for a new ideological demarcation. Herein lies the danger: the door is opened to takfīr for those who reject the political implications of this formulation. Yet the very framework and rhetorical character through which this idea is presented deprive it of genuine traditional legitimacy.

A defining tendency of the modern mind is to believe that nothing can be accomplished without first establishing an “organization”—a structured body possessing its own ideological boundaries, statutes, and party discipline. Islam, however, is not a system that can be confined within such limits without distortion. It is in itself self-sufficient, total, and transcendent; its boundaries are those of Truth itself. When one attempts to reconstitute it as a modern-style organization with its own doctrinal “line” and institutional apparatus, the universality and amplitude of the Tradition are inevitably narrowed and impoverished. This is precisely what occurred in the case of Mawdudi.

The classical scholars did not make Ḥākimiyyah an explicit article of creed because the servant of God, by the very act of affirming Allah’s Essence, Attributes, and Lordship, had already implicitly accepted His absolute sovereignty over all domains of life. What the great traditional authorities undertook—figures such as Imam Abu Yusuf, al-Ghazali, al-Baqillani, al-Juwayni, and al-Mawardi—was something altogether different. They elaborated the principles of siyāsah sharʿiyyah and the institutions of the Caliphate from within the organic unfolding of Islamic civilization itself, in response to concrete civilizational needs, without ever departing from the immutable principles.

When the Safavids raised the Shi‘ite doctrine of the Imamate to a dogmatic and political level, it was the Sunni scholars who, in defending the reality of the Caliphate, strengthened its traditional foundations—not by inventing new doctrines, but by drawing more deeply from the perennial sources. Their work remained rooted in the fitrah of Islam.

The modern reaction, by contrast, proceeds differently. When Islam is reframed as a counter-organization to modernity, using the very mental categories of the adversary, the result cannot but be tainted by the errors it seeks to combat. Various forms of distortion, narrowing, and innovation (bidʿah) inevitably enter. That the denial of Allah’s ḥākimiyyah constitutes kufr is beyond doubt. But the specific modern framing, the reactive character, and the organizational spirit from which Mawdudi’s formulation emerged cannot claim the authority of Tradition.

Today we witness two opposing abuses of this concept. One group wields Ḥākimiyyah as a political weapon for takfīr and the pursuit of power. Another uses the critique of Mawdudi’s formulation as a means to vilify the very idea of Islamic governance and the application of the Sharīʿah—thereby revealing a secularist and defeatist tendency. While the modern construct of Ḥākimiyyah may be rejected on uṣūlī grounds, the importance of Islamic rule and the supremacy of Divine Law is abundantly established throughout the turāth, independent of this terminology.

If anyone, invoking or rejecting the slogan of Ḥākimiyyah, proceeds to undermine the very principle of Allah’s sovereignty and the implementation of His Law, it then becomes the responsibility of the true scholars of the Tradition to pronounce upon the nature of such a deviation.

In our previous discussion, we explored how the term “Revolution” — when brought down from its fundamental philosophical position to the purely political level — introduced a political dimension to Islam that is fundamentally inconsistent with the core spirit and essence of Islam. The central focus of our entire conversation was to examine how certain groups have reduced Islam to a political framework by employing Western conceptual tools, vocabulary, and parameters. They have effectively confined Islam within the narrow boundaries of political discourse. This approach is being advanced by those who are historically and intellectually disconnected from the continuous 1,400-year tradition of Islamic thought — a position that stands in direct conflict with that rich intellectual heritage.

Our objective has never been to engage in mere linguistic or theoretical wordplay — analyzing who uses the term “revolution” and in what contexts. Had that been the case, a more detailed etymological and semantic discussion would have been possible, and we could have further complicated the issue through intricate word games and meaning-shifting.

However, when we presented our critique of the concept of “Revolution,” it was clear to attentive readers that our discussion was not limited to the origin or usage of the word. Rather, the core of our argument was to demonstrate how this political reductionism fundamentally opposes the entire Islamic framework and operates in an inverse manner to its true spirit. Therefore, it is necessary for us to revisit and elaborate on certain aspects here once again. This will help make the matter clearer to everyone — particularly to those who have uncritically and blindly accepted this political framing of Islam.

In our previous discussion, we highlighted how the concept of “Revolution” — particularly in the sense it is commonly used in the West — completely denies metaphysical existence. This process unfolded throughout the Enlightenment period, and when the revolutionaries fully destroyed the monarchical system, it came to be defined as a Revolution.

It is true that when Islamists have used the term “Revolution” or “বিপ্লব”, they have done so within the context of establishing an Islamic system of governance — there is no doubt about that. However, our concern and the core point of our discussion has been cleverly sidestepped by our counterparts (though we do not view them as adversaries). They have skillfully evaded the substance by presenting an apparently innocent historical account of the word and its terminology, thereby confusing their readers in a more sophisticated manner.

I am sincerely regretful that I have to use the word “confuse” here, as I do not have a more suitable term while still maintaining respect. Otherwise, it could be described as munafiqī (hypocrisy) or, in more refined language, as deflection or cherry-picking — an old habit among many of them. This occurs when they claim to be Salafi without any proper evidence or qualification, despite not fully understanding the true meaning of the term, nor knowing its origin and historical development.

It is true that when Islamists use the term “Revolution” or “বিপ্লব”, they generally point towards the establishment of an Islamic system of governance. However, there is a more subtle point that we often overlook: even though they use the word to indicate an Islamic political order, they are, by default, functioning within the framework of modernity.

How so? Precisely by reducing Islam to the political level — the very issue that was the subject of our previous discussion, which they have very cleverly evaded. Because those who truly uphold the traditional Islamic stream rarely employ such terminology. On the other hand, those engaged in democratic politics further distort the use of this word to redefine democratic governance (for example, by invoking notions like the welfare state and similar rhetoric). However, they are not the primary focus of our current discussion.

In our previous discussion, we demonstrated that two distinct groups have adopted the term “Revolution” as a fundamental axiom in their programs. One is the Ikhwani-Democratic stream, and the other is the Ikhwani non-Democratic stream. However, our purpose is not to merely catalog who has used this word and how. Rather, our aim is to show how these two groups, in the name of establishing Islam in a territorial and political sense, have effectively reduced Islam to the political level.

Metaphysically, every thing possesses two dimensions: one is the zahiri (manifest, outer) aspect and the other is the batini (inner, hidden) aspect — the visible and the invisible. The visible aspects generally fall within the realm of physics — that is, within the limits of what humans can see, experience, or empirically verify. The prefix “Meta” refers to that which lies beyond the visible; in other words, the invisible realm. Many refer to this as primary or foundational knowledge. This is a reality acknowledged across all religions: the unseen world (Ghayb) comes first, and the visible world follows. As Allah states in the Quran: “Those who believe in the unseen.” In Bengali, we call this অধিবিদ্যা, which fully captures the meaning of Metaphysics — that which transcends ordinary stage of knowledge, or knowledge related to sensation.

Thus, everything has two sides: one is the spiritual and metaphysical dimension, and the other is the worldly and external condition. In Islam, this duality has always been maintained — from the politics of Islam under the Prophet ﷺ, the noble Companions, the following three generations, right up to our final Ottoman Caliphate. When we speak of the “unseen” dimension, it does not merely refer to the commonly understood invisible realm. Rather, beyond man’s external existence, there exists another layer of existence intrinsically connected to the outer one. This includes man’s intellect (‘Aql), his nafs (soul/self), and within the nafs itself there are various levels. Beyond all these lies the level of the Ruh (Spirit) or Essence — what we commonly refer to as spirituality or spiritual depth.

In Islam, this duality is preserved through several essential elements: Ilm (sacred knowledge), Adab (refined conduct and etiquette), Ruhaniyyat (spirituality), and the Islamic system of governance, which serves as the necessary framework that directs and nurtures these elements. However, non-democratic Islamists have reversed this order. For them, the Islamic political system itself defines and determines Ilm, Adab, and Ruhaniyyat — a clear distortion of Islam’s fundamental functional methodology.

The critical question arises: Allah Almighty did not send Islam with governance as its primary objective. On what basis, then, are they elevating political authority to the central position? If they lack a solid foundation in Ilm, Adab, and Ruhaniyyat according to the traditional method, how can they legitimately claim to bring about an Islamic revolution? Upon what foundation do they intend to establish this revolution?

By confining themselves exclusively to the political domain, they once again validate our assertion: they have reduced Islam from its elevated spiritual and metaphysical level to a mere instrument of political power. This is nothing but a restriction and distortion of Islam’s comprehensive nature.

As we have explained earlier, bringing anything down from the level of Ruhaniyyat (spirituality) to the political level means destroying its fundamental essence. In doing so, they have sidelined Islam’s metaphysical essence and inverted its core principles by subordinating it to worldly political considerations. This is precisely the essence of modernity.

The Noble Prophet ﷺ was not merely a political leader. Rather, he was the perfection of all of Allah’s creation — what is metaphysically and spiritually referred to as Insan-e-Kamil, the Perfect Human. In other words, he is the one who embodied within himself the complete exemplification of all the Divine Attributes of Allah and brought to perfection the qualities and deeds of all the previous Prophets (peace be upon them all).1

This was not simply a worldly or political occurrence, but the seal upon Allah’s entire creation. That is why he is Khatamul Anbiya — the Seal of the Prophets. How is it conceivable that the one who perfects the station and attributes of all Prophets and Messengers would appear merely as a political leader, as these mediocre and pseudo-fundamentalists portray him? In reality, in the time of no Prophet (peace be upon them) was the system of governance ever placed in the primary or central position. From Adam ﷺ to Muhammad ﷺ, we do not find any such example.

If they claim that they are operating as a separate sector, then the question naturally arises: for such a task, Ilm (sacred knowledge), Adab (proper etiquette and conduct), and Ruhaniyyat (spirituality) become indispensable prerequisites. Since they claim to be working for the establishment of Islam or speak of revolution, they are necessarily required to first understand Islam through the traditional, Isnaadi (chain-based) method and fulfill these conditions.

If, however, they believe that these elements are not prerequisites for establishing Islam but are merely relative or secondary matters, then we must regard this claim with ridicule. For how can those who lack even a foundational knowledge of the Shariah legitimately claim that they will establish Islam?

In that case, there remains no real difference between the Ikhwani-Democratic stream and the non-Democratic one. Both groups are essentially two faces of the same deception — falsely claiming to establish Islam while rejecting its traditional methodology, distorting its fundamental principles, and introducing a new dimension of modernity (which they themselves fail to fully comprehend).

It is astonishing to observe that some respected scholars, swayed by their popularity, are leaning toward them without fully understanding the implications. We have already shown in our previous discussion that these individuals can rightly be described as Pseudo-Fundamentalists or Mediocre. They repeatedly resort to cherry-picking and intellectual deception, and have unfortunately succeeded in misleading a significant portion of society — most of whom neither properly understand the traditional method nor fully grasp the nature and tendencies of modernity.

Materialism in Islam

Now we must delve a bit deeper into these distortions within Islam through a more detailed, though necessarily complex, discussion. The confusions they create are extremely intricate and subtle. However, anyone who has internalized the traditional Islamic framework and views these issues through the lens of its fundamental principles — rather than through a self-constructed, modern political framework — will be able to understand them clearly.

As I have mentioned earlier, everything has two dimensions: one zahiri (manifest, outer) and the other batini (inner, hidden). The same holds true for Islam. It is not merely a collection of outward laws and procedures. Every Sunnah and every ruling in Islam possesses a batini (inner) dimension that affects both human beings and the entire universe.

We find clear examples of this in the Quran and Sunnah. Allah Almighty says: “Corruption has appeared on land and sea because of what the hands of people have earned.” How is it possible for human sins and immorality to influence the land and sea? How would a materialist explain this phenomenon?

It is impossible for an empiricist or a materialist to explain such realities, because Islam has never been merely a set of outward regulations, nor is man simply a collection of natural physical elements. Human beings are constantly required to strive toward their higher station — which is their spiritual and metaphysical level. This spirituality is cultivated precisely through Ilm (sacred knowledge), Adab (proper conduct and etiquette), and Ruhaniyyat (spiritual purification).

As a result, when any group reduces Islam to the political level, its metaphysical dimension is lost, and Islam appears merely as a political ideology or “political religion.” This naturally represents a transformation — a descent from its elevated station to a lower one.

The West underwent this process because they failed to properly understand metaphysics. Moreover, Western civilization did not possess its own authentic tradition of divine knowledge in the physical realm, as was the case with Christianity.

We must first understand clearly that the current spiritual and metaphysical decline of the West stems from their misapplication of Aristotelian logic and, in certain cases, the misapplication of Ibn Sina’s (Avicenna’s) primary logical framework. At this point, we need to discuss in some detail how Materialism originated.

Saint Thomas Aquinas took Ibn Sina’s (Avicenna’s) logical principle of Essence (quiddity) — which was primarily a logical conception — and applied it to the realm of existing creation. Ibn Sina held that the human intellect is sufficient to understand Essence, regardless of whether that Essence has actual existence in reality or not. For example, through intellect alone, one can grasp the Essence of a unicorn, even though unicorns do not exist in the real world.

However, Thomas Aquinas transferred this logical function into the domain of ontology and applied it universally to all existing creations, treating it as a fundamental and universal principle. As a result, what was for Ibn Sina a primarily logical expression limited to the level of the intellect became, in Aquinas’s framework, an ontological universal principle. This development made it increasingly difficult for later Christians to prove the existence of Allah in the fields of logic and metaphysics.

Because they applied this principle to all creations, and although this approach persisted for a long period, later thinkers extended it further into the physical world. Since Saint Thomas Aquinas had already separated Essence from Existence — viewing Existence as the actualization or practical realization of Essence — Existence without Essence held no real value.

Consequently, when this principle later occupied a foundational place in philosophy, it became a core philosophical axiom. During the Enlightenment period, greater emphasis was placed on Existence, while Essence was relegated to a secondary position. In subsequent times, thinkers such as Kant, Freud, and other proponents of modernity increasingly leaned toward denying the existence of God and rejecting the spiritual and metaphysical dimensions altogether.

The misapplication of Ibn Sina’s primary logical principle by Saint Thomas Aquinas within a theistic framework created a significant intellectual gap in the Christian world. This occurred because Christians lacked an authentic metaphysical tradition comparable to what Muslims possess through the Quran and Hadith. On the other hand, the Injil (Gospel) revealed to Jesus (peace be upon him) had already been lost, and they took the teachings of Saint Paul as the fundamental scripture of their religion. In the field of metaphysics, they adopted Aristotelian philosophy, and since Ibn Sina was the greatest commentator on Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas’s erroneous transfer of Ibn Sina’s logical principle into the realm of Ontology created lasting difficulties for subsequent Christian philosophers and accademicians in proving the existence of God.

Thomas Aquinas’s application created a division in epistemology between intellect and reality. Because if Essence is truly separate from Existence, then God’s existence becomes confined merely to the human mind, without any corresponding reality in existence. It was from this error that René Descartes later arrived at the conclusion that true certainty lies in empirical existence — that which is extended in space — and gravitated toward a self-centered, subjective understanding of existence. This marked the beginning of Materialism. From this point onward, Western academia and those who followed it began denying the spiritual world and the metaphysical dimension of human beings.

It was also from here that Nominalism emerged through William of Ockham, who, by placing excessive emphasis on existence, began rejecting Metaphysics. Throughout the Renaissance and the entire Enlightenment period, Descartes’ self-centered philosophy was further expanded. Naturally, when Descartes limited existence to a self-centered subjectivity (I think , therefore I am), nothing remained except human existence as intellectually supreme. From this foundation arose the concepts of Freedom, Humanism, Secularism, and similar ideologies. In traditional epistemology, truth began from being itself, after Descartes’s self-center subjectivity, it began from human itself. In earlier times, being was the primary starting point, after Descartes , humans became the starting point. This is totally upside down from the truth. From this viewpoint, Modernity started its journey from spiritual ascent to material descent.

Consequently, man began placing excessive emphasis on his own theoretical and material existence, prioritizing everything connected to the current material reality. The final blow in this process came with the French Revolution. This is the true meaning of Individuality — where the individual considers only his lower, worldly self as real, while everything transcendent and unseen (Ghayb) appears to him as unreal, false, and unacceptable.

Our readers, we hope, can now understand why the term “Revolution” carries a distinctly different meaning for Westerners. Although Islamists use the word “Revolution” to refer to the establishment of an Islamic system of governance, they are nevertheless operating within the very same framework that the West has constructed for such functions. In other words, they are politicizing Islam and detaching its political dimension from its scholarly (ilmi) and metaphysical foundation, presenting it instead as a complete political philosophy. In this sense, Revolution represents the final collective act of completely severing human beings from their metaphysical and spiritual essence. The French Revolution stands as the ultimate manifestation of this process.

Even though Islamists apply this term in the context of Islamic Shariah, both democratic and non-democratic Islamists — due to their scholarly ignorance, lack of clarity and seriousness regarding spirituality, absence of proper isnad (authentic chains of transmission), and failure to understand the tendencies of modernity — are ultimately functioning as part of modernity itself. They have brutally materialized Islam, and this trend is gaining widespread traction among people who do not possess a proper understanding of Islam. (Keep in mind, that we are not saying that the establishment of Khilafah or wanting to establish Khilafah is not in a conduct or tendency of Modernity, instead, what we’re saying is that how our contemporary people function is part of Modernity. If we consider that, the establishment of Khilafah is part of Modernity and Jihad against the kuffar is a part of Modernity, then we’ll fall under the conditions of Modernity itself.)

By failing to explain Islam from within its own traditional framework, they have become infected by modernity. This is the greatest disease of our time — one that, instead of strengthening Islam, is creating ever greater disorder and chaos.

It is true that the word “Revolution” does not always inherently point toward the denial of metaphysical and spiritual reality; in many contexts, it can carry positive connotations. However, due to the overall intellectual impurity and ambiguity of non-democratic Islamists, the concept of “Revolution” as they employ it ultimately drives us in the same direction as the French Revolution — toward the denial of spiritual essence.

Non-democratic Islamists, who heavily rely on figures like Sayyid Qutb, Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, and others, and present their ideas as evidence while promoting confusion and misguidance, actually hold no authoritative position in Islamic epistemology. At best, we can say that they know more about Islam than an average person, but they can never reach the level of a true scholar (‘alim), nor do they possess any legitimate authority in matters of Shariah.

Consequently, the revolutionary literature and frameworks presented by non-democratic Islamists, along with the evidences they cite, lack any real credibility. In such a case, what acceptance can their false claims possibly have? By confining Islam exclusively within the realm of politics, sidelining the acquisition of Ilm, the importance of Isnad, and relegating spiritual and metaphysical dimensions to irrelevance or secondary status, they are essentially reshaping Islam into a materialistic and pragmatic framework, much like modernity itself.

This is because spirituality, metaphysical reality, and Ruhaniyyat are not limited to mere physical objects or things confined only to this worldly existence without any cosmic significance or higher reality. Even when some of them mention “Tazkiya” (purification) to save face, they fail to understand the fundamental difference between Tasawwuf and Tazkiya.

As we mentioned in our previous discussion, in the name of establishing Islam, they are misleading people — or more accurately, playing with people’s emotions — those who neither possess proper knowledge of Shariah, nor have any Isnad, nor understand what Ruhaniyyat truly is. They are merely a disconnected group engaged in political activism, who in reality do not even know from whom they acquired their knowledge, nor what Isnad and Ruhaniyyat actually mean.

In their so-called revolution, neither the acquisition of Ilm, nor Isnad, nor Ruhaniyyat is made a condition. Anyone who claims to have the “ideal” of establishing Islam — regardless of who they are — can join them. This tendency directly reflects a democratic mentality, where Ilm (knowledge), qualification, Sanad (authorization), intellectual capacity, Tazkiyah, and Ruhaniyyat are not considered differentiating factors or prerequisites. Instead, importance is given solely to the “individual” who possesses nothing but an “ideal” — an ideal that remains vague, without any clarity as to what it truly entails or whether any qualification is even required for it.

Whenever anyone shrinks, denies, or considers the spiritual and metaphysical dimensions of Islamic Shariah as secondary or unreal, they are in effect reducing Islamic Shariah to the level of materialism. Modern philosophies and ideologies have no metaphysical or spiritual dimension. Everything born out of the pride of modernity is merely a product or object — lifeless, without soul or spirit, valuable only in its external existence. Anything that does not provide sensual or bodily pleasure holds no value to them.

Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been engaged in repetitive mechanical processes to produce goods, often without knowing why they are producing them or how beneficial those products truly are for their soul. Day after day, week after week, and year after year, they continue the same mechanical behavior, producing products that drag human beings down from their spiritual and ruhani level to a purely mechanical one.

This is why people with a modernity mindset enthusiastically promote “Productivity” but never speak of “Spirituality.” (The word Productivity itself points toward consumerism.) Because the Ruh (spirit) represents man’s true essence. When anything loses its spirit, it becomes mere matter. The act of lowering something from its original, higher nature to a lower state is called Materialization.

By removing the Deen and Shariah from its fundamental metaphysical and spiritual position and dragging it down to the political level, they have — whether intentionally or unintentionally — materialized the Shariah.

Even if we assume their intentions are good, it becomes clear that they are neither intellectually mature nor do they truly understand what modernity actually is. This once again demonstrates that they are not qualified to establish Islam. Their claims are nothing but emotional assertions that have no connection with Islam’s traditional methodology and silsila (spiritual-intellectual chain). Instead, they reflect a rebellious mentality against the traditional stream — one that strongly reminds us of the Protestant movement.

Introduction

For a long time I had felt the need to write something on the present condition of the Islamists—a condition which, in truth, does not represent Islam at all, but which, almost by default, imports modernity and keeps its adherents imprisoned within the very framework that modernity has determined for their functioning.

Whenever I have taken up the pen against the so-called fundamentalists, various people have put forward scattered and fragmentary questions; others have asked me to treat the subject more carefully. Yet in everything I have written here, my principal aim has been to bring into relief a certain pathological tendency. I therefore ask the reader, while perusing these pages, to direct his attention not so much to this or that group of persons as to the tendency itself. For the disorder of which we speak may be found even among those who consider themselves traditional. In other words, it is those in whom this tendency is active who are the real target of my writing.

At the same time, I am well aware that what I have set forth is far from sufficient to cure the malady. It is also probable that many will fail to grasp the full significance and depth of these considerations, since they possess no acquaintance with metaphysics or with the transcendental principles that govern all true intellectuality. I have, however, avoided descending into technical discussions of ʿilm al-kalām or formal logic, so that the text should not become inaccessible to those unfamiliar with such disciplines.

Nevertheless, one must acknowledge the reality: the intellectual disease of our time—whose germs have come, as is natural, from the West—has now spread over the entire mental horizon of Muslims, and especially over those who claim to bear the standard of Islam. In such an overwhelming flood, my own modest effort can be no more than a drifting piece of wood; yet even that may, by the grace of Providence, carry someone to the shore and deliver him from the present intellectual sickness.

Inna maʿiya rabbi sa-yahdīnī—“Verily, my Lord is with me; He will guide me.”

The History of Revolution

To understand what is meant by the term “revolution,” one must first return to its primordial significance rather than its modern ideological usage. In the traditional sense, the word denoted neither emancipation nor progress, but rather upheaval, collapse, and the dissolution of order into chaos. Even Shanskrit, the word ‘revolution’ implied disorder, rupture, and instability. Yet if we turn to the English term itself — Revolution — we discover a meaning of an entirely different nature. Derived from the notion of “rolling back” or completing a full circular movement, the term was once employed by ancient astronomers to describe the perfect cyclical motion of celestial bodies. In certain contexts it was also used within physics and metaphysics to signify harmonious recurrence according to an established cosmic order. Thus, while culturally the term suggested chaos and collapse, linguistically and cosmologically it originally referred to the completion of a cycle within an ordered totality.

It is only after the French Revolution that the word underwent a radical inversion of meaning. The overthrow of the French monarchy and the establishment of democratic political forms came to be celebrated under the title of “Revolution.” What had formerly been a social order grounded in divine representation, transcendental principles, and hierarchical structure was replaced by an order reduced to merely social, political, and material considerations. In other words, the ancient hierarchy that extended from the individual and familial sphere to the political domain — itself understood as a terrestrial reflection of higher metaphysical realities — was deliberately severed from its sacred roots. Even when attached to false religions, traditional civilizations nevertheless recognized the necessity of grounding social order in supra-human principles. The complete collapse of this sacred foundation was thereafter named “Revolution.”

The monarchical order, whatever its imperfections, symbolized a connection between earthly authority and transcendent reality. After the Revolution, this connection was systematically dissolved. What had once been spiritual, became material, what had once derived legitimacy from a higher principle, became subordinated to merely human and temporal concerns. Thus modernity came to define “revolution” precisely as the emancipation of society from all metaphysical hierarchy and transcendental authority. Yet from the metaphysical point of view, this inversion represents not elevation but descent, for the spiritual domain is necessarily superior to the corporeal. The higher cannot proceed from the lower, whereas the lower always depends upon the higher for its meaning and existence. Even the Qur’an speaks of the world of the spirit as belonging to a higher order of reality. The material world therefore constitutes the lowest degree of manifestation. Consequently, to detach civilization from the spiritual world and enthrone purely social and political categories as supreme is precisely what modernity celebrates under the name of “Revolution.”

The transition from the spiritual to the material was itself interpreted as revolutionary because it marked the establishment of a political order entirely disconnected from transcendence. Through chaos, destruction, and the dissolution of the traditional order, the French upheaval inaugurated a new civilization whose central values became “liberty,” “equality,” and “freedom.” Each of these terms conceals within itself an entire philosophy and a distinct form of disorder, though this is not the place to analyze them exhaustively. For the moment, it is sufficient to observe the psychological tendencies they engender within the modern mentality.

Whatever its defects, monarchy as a social form always retained a symbolic orientation toward the spiritual world. The principle of hierarchy — itself a reflection of cosmic order — was universally acknowledged in traditional civilizations. Virtually all peoples recognized that there exists a Supreme Principle above creation and that the universe operates according to gradation, order, and ontological distinction. Thus the king ruled beneath Heaven, while religious matters were guided by priests, theologians, or, in the Islamic world, by the counsel of the ʿulamāʾ and the Sufis. The personal virtue or corruption of individual rulers is secondary to the fact that monarchy itself functioned as a symbolic representation of transcendental authority. Whether in the form of the Islamic Caliphate or even within polytheistic civilizations, traditional societies nevertheless affirmed the existence of a higher order beyond the merely material domain.

It is true that throughout history certain groups mistook lower invisible entities for transcendent realities and consequently fell into forms of demonic worship. Yet those incapable of metaphysical discrimination often confuse the “invisible” with the “transcendent”. The jinn, despite being unseen, still belong to the domain of manifestation and therefore remain within the cosmic order of matter and form. The invisible is not necessarily supra-material merely because it escapes ordinary sensory perception.

The traditional order may be summarised thus:

Monarchy = Spiritual, Higher, Metaphysical Principle.

The modern order, by contrast:

Democracy = Material, Lower, purely Social and Political Realm.

In the traditional order, every aspect of society and the state was evaluated and ordered according to established traditional norms or in accordance with the prevailing religion. In other words, in ancient religious or traditional systems, society was defined fundamentally by sacred principles, by its customs, its tastes, and its culture. After the Revolution, however, man began to define society himself. Where previously a higher, transcendent Being had established all things according to a definite order and hierarchical structure, following the so-called Revolution, man rejected that order outright. In this way, he became completely severed from the higher world. Formerly, the state and society functioned while preserving a balance between the visible and invisible realms. After the Revolution, however, everything tilted decisively toward the visible world alone. This is what is known as Materialism.

Whenever balance between the two levels is lost, disorder inevitably follows. Modern man, by denying the existence of any transcendent reality, has inclined entirely toward materialism. As a result of this rupture between man’s spiritual soul (rūḥ) and his higher transcendent nature, he has fallen into chaos and profound disequilibrium. We all know that if a stick is not balanced equally at both ends, it will fall to the lower side. Similarly, the absence of equilibrium between the Transcendental and the material realms has caused modern humanity to plunge downward — that is, toward error and misguidance.

It is a fundamental principle of metaphysics that the Transcendent Reality — the reality of God — is always conceived as being “above” (not in a spatial sense, but in an allegorical and qualitative sense, in accordance with primordial human nature or fiṭrah). Consequently, everything that stands in opposition to the spiritual world belongs to the domain of the satanic. The deeper one descends into materialism, the deeper one moves into the satanic realm. The further one advances in this direction, the more profoundly one sinks.

Now it is essential for us to understand clearly what duality means in this context. Metaphysics rests upon a fundamental principle: the cosmos depends upon two distinct orders — the spiritual world (rūḥānī) and the corporeal world (jismānī), the heavenly and the earthly, the visible and the invisible. The material or visible world is that domain in which everything is measurable. It possesses sound, vibration, volume, and occupies physical space. By contrast, the Transcendental realm is that which cannot be measured at all. It has neither sound, nor vibration, nor volume. It is incorporeal and belongs to a non-physical order. (Here one must avoid confusion with invisible creatures, for the invisible beings — such as the jinn — still belong to the material domain. They are part of the created order and cannot be equated with the truly Transcendental.)

The Transcendental or spiritual world lies above even the subtle invisible realms. Nothing that is created can be Transcendental. Everything we perceive with our senses, everything contained within the manifested universe we inhabit, belongs to the material world — whether visible or invisible. None of it pertains to the spiritual order proper. The Transcendental realm is, by definition, that which has no sound, no volume, and is not measurable in any quantitative sense.

All invisible entities are created beings and therefore fall under the category of matter. For example, the jinn are created from fire, and fire itself is a material substance. Thus, although invisible to ordinary human sight, the jinn are nonetheless material beings — just as human beings are material, though composed of a different substance (clay or earth).

From all that has been said thus far, it should now be clear that when the word “Revolution” lost its primordial meaning and assumed its modern form, the term came to signify something entirely different. What is now understood by Revolution is the following:

Revolution / বিপ্লব : Democracy, Liberty, Freedom, Equality, and the Quantitative.

In contrast, the Traditional order is defined by:

Monarchy, Hierarchy, the Transcendental, and Metaphysical Truth.

To present the matter more simply:

Since the French Revolution, the social order has been inverted — turned upside down — in the following manner. It is essential to remember, however, that whatever stands in direct opposition to fundamental metaphysical principles, or represents their inversion, ultimately belongs to the satanic realm or leads to profound error and delusion.

In other words, the term Revolution is intimately connected with nearly every modern ideology and philosophy. Whether it be Euro-American capitalism or the communism of Lenin, Mao, and Che Guevara, both systems equally emphasises the human and material dimension at the expense of Transcendental principles. In this respect, they stand on the same ground. In both revolutionary movements, there was no real place for man’s spiritual nature or for traditional metaphysics. If any spiritual element was admitted at all, it was reduced to something purely human — confined entirely to the material world and the domain of the five senses.

From the foregoing discussion, it should now be evident that, since the French Revolution, the word “Revolution” has been employed exclusively to denote activity within the purely political realm — a realm that bears no relation whatsoever to the Divine. Capitalists have described their own system as a “revolution,” while communists have applied the same term to their struggles, wars, and seizures of power against existing rulers. Figures such as Mao, Lenin, and Che Guevara all regarded political chaos and upheaval, along with the destruction of stability and order, as integral to the revolutionary process. This kind of propaganda, which demands blind ideological allegiance without ever asking the fundamental question — “What is man in reality?” — has been presented as an exalted ideal. Throughout this entire period, the words “revolution” and “বিপ্লব” have been used almost exclusively in reference to politics, power, warfare, and destructive upheaval.

It thus becomes clear that Revolution, in its modern sense, has never played any role in addressing man’s true nature, the reality of creation and the Creator, the human soul, or questions of genuine morality. On the contrary, the term has consistently served to represent phenomena steeped in aggression, destruction, and vengeance — things profoundly attached to the material world and marked by agnostic skepticism, if not outright denial, of the Divine and the spiritual order.

The Question of Islamism

It is now necessary to turn our attention to the Islamists. To understand their condition, we must first trace when this phenomenon began.

In 1924, with the abolition of the Caliphate, a new movement emerged in Egypt under the leadership of Shaykh Hasan al-Banna: the Ikhwān al-Muslimīn (Muslim Brotherhood). Its declared aim was the restoration of the Caliphate. In its early phase, the movement adopted a rigorously orthodox approach. Over time, however, it began to compromise with existing modern power structures. While its discourse continued to emphasize the establishment of Islam, the movement increasingly called for the formal implementation of Islam at the state level. As it engaged in negotiations with governments, it was repeatedly forced — sometimes for survival, sometimes for the sake of power — to dilute its original principles and ideals. External pressures from foreign powers and the constant struggle for self-preservation played their part. Gradually, the Ikhwān moved away from its orthodox foundations and began drifting toward liberal positions. Its demands, slogans, and overall tone softened and shifted. This dramatic transformation accelerated significantly after the martyrdom of Shaykh al-Banna.

From the Ikhwānī current emerged similar ideological movements across various Muslim countries. In the Indian subcontinent, Jamā‘at-e-Islāmī stands as the most prominent example. The Jamā‘at we observe today functions essentially as a hardline secular party: it speaks of establishing Islam, yet in practice it cooks its political rice in the pot of democracy. These are the groups commonly referred to as “liberal” or “moderate Muslims” — a label widely used in the contemporary muslim world. Another current emerged from the Ikhwānī movement — one that rejected democratic politics outright and adopted armed struggle as its ideological path. This current was represented by Shaykh Abdullah Azzam (may Allah have mercy on him), who himself came from the Ikhwānī background. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, he migrated there and played a pivotal role in training the leader of the mujāhidīn, Shaykh Abu Abdullah (Usama bin Laden). This period laid the foundations for the emergence of Al-Qaeda.

After the martyrdom of Shaykh Azzam, the leadership of this movement passed primarily to Shaykh Usama bin Laden and Shaykh Ayman al-Zawahiri, who remained its central figures for decades. It is not my intention here to recount their full history; the above is mentioned only for the sake of contextual continuity.

What is important to note is that both groups — the democratic Islamists and the militant Islamists — trace their intellectual and organisational origins back to the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwān al-Muslimīn). One faction chose the path of democracy, while the other rejected it completely, considering armed struggle to be the authentic ideological position. In simpler terms: the first group is democratic, while the second is explicitly non-democratic. Through these two currents, a profound polarisation has taken place within the Muslim world. On one side stand the liberal Muslims, whom the non-democratic Islamists regard as immersed in misguidance (ghumrahī). On the other side are those who consider armed struggle to be the only authentic and correct path (haqq), viewing all who oppose their method as deluded and misguided. The thought patterns of these two groups stand in complete opposition to one another.

Besides these, there exists a third group — those who confine themselves to knowledge, righteous action, teaching, and study (ʿilm, ʿamal, dars, and tadrīs). They remain detached from all forms of political activism, yet remain deeply connected with society. In our context, these are the scholars and teachers of the traditional madrasas.

We now return to the central purpose of this writing. Our principal concern is to examine the present condition of both the non-democratic Islamists and the traditional Islamists, particularly in the light of the current situation in our own country.

The Tendency of Modernity

There exists a common tendency shared by both of these groups: a markedly power-centric mentality. They attach an exaggerated importance to the acquisition and exercise of political power — something that was never central to the traditional Islamic worldview.

The non-democratic current of the Ikhwān, along with those who advocate armed struggle, remain profoundly influenced by the thought of Sayyid Quṭb and Maulana Mawdūdī. What is remarkable, however, is that neither of them was a traditionally trained scholar (ʿālim) steeped in the classical Islamic sciences. On the contrary, during their own lifetimes, a significant number of traditional scholars openly opposed their ideas. Furthermore, in the writings of both men one finds a sharply critical stance toward Amīr Muʿāwiya and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) — whether in Quṭb’s Social Justice in Islam or in Mawdūdī’s Khilāfat wa Mulūkiyyat. The essential point to note is that both figures encountered strong opposition from the body of traditional ulamā. The fundamental reason for this divergence from orthodox Islam lies in their thoroughly politicised outlook: for them, everything is reduced to politics. Religion, society, and even spirituality are viewed primarily through the lens of political power and state authority. This power-obsessed orientation is itself a clear hallmark of modern thought and constitutes one of the most significant deviations from the traditional Islamic perspective.

Throughout the nineteenth century and beyond, these thinkers continued to employ the words “revolution” in service of their power-centric worldview. As a result, we find in Sayyid Quṭb a strong and pervasive influence of communist and socialist tendencies. Anyone familiar with his writings can clearly discern a distinctly socialist mentality underlying his thought, even though he expressed it through Islamic terminology and ideals.

A well-known incident from his time in prison illustrates this orientation. When a scholar came to him before his execution to administer the kalimah (the declaration of faith), Quṭb is reported to have said: “The kalimah that hangs me is the same kalimah that feeds you.” Whether or not that scholar was sincere in his knowledge, the remark created a powerful stir. It fostered a widespread atmosphere of suspicion and hostility toward the traditional ulamā in society. This sentiment, in turn, encouraged young people toward extreme politicisation and armed struggle. They began to regard Sayyid Quṭb and his ideological companions as the sole representatives of truth (haqq), conveniently forgetting that Quṭb was neither a classically trained scholar nor possessed any authoritative standing in the matters of Islamic Sacred Law (Sharīʿah).

Thus, throughout this entire period, they continued to employ the terms “Revolution” — the very slogans that had been central to both Capitalism and Communism. It was primarily through these two currents that, beginning in the nineteenth century, the word entered widespread usage within Muslim society. As time progressed, those who adopted the language of revolution increasingly sought to carry out an “Islamic Revolution” following the structural model of the communists — Lenin, Mao, and Che Guevara. This mindset remains clearly visible today if one examines the non-democratic Islamists with any depth.

And it is here that the greatest inversion occurs — the Inversion of Traditional Principles. That is, the deliberate movement in the exact opposite direction of Tradition. As we have seen earlier, after the French Revolution, when man established democratic governance and celebrated his complete severance from Transcendental principles as “Revolution,” the same term was later adopted by Muslims in the nineteenth century. This was done chiefly by the two groups we have discussed — movements whose founders were not traditionally trained scholars (ʿulamā), even if some scholars later joined them, and whose entire activity revolves around politics and the pursuit of power. We have already observed that the further man drifts from fundamental metaphysical principles, the deeper he sinks into misguidance (ghumrah)

A genuinely Transcendental and Metaphysical doctrine or belief can never remain confined to a single level of existence. A truly divine ideal is always two-dimensional: it encompasses both the Transcendental principle and the material domain. In other words, it effects a harmonious synthesis between spirituality (rūḥāniyyah) and the affairs of the world. We find the clearest example of this in the life of the Prophet ﷺ. He was not commanded to establish a political system immediately upon receiving prophethood. Rather, he was ordered to call people to faith and to the doctrine of Divine Unity (tawḥīd). It was only when his Companions had become firmly established upon īmān and tawḥīd that political authority was granted to them in Madinah.

Moreover, it is a point widely recognised among traditional scholars that the establishment of a governing system or the founding of the Caliphate was never considered among the primary objectives (maqāṣid) of the Sacred Law. It belongs to a subsequent and secondary stage.

Yet those who have reduced Islam to the level of politics and the struggle for power have inverted this order. They have placed the acquisition of power and the establishment of rule at the very forefront — as the primary and fundamental concern. This constitutes precisely the same type of inversion and distortion within Islam that we have observed in the broader modern world.

To those who are intellectually alert and possess a sound understanding of traditional principles, it is evident that words always carry within themselves a particular force: they tend to direct man toward their original meaning and strive to confine him within the conceptual sphere that the word inherently contains. Prior to the modern era, there is no historical instance of the term “Revolution” or being associated with Islam. The word was used exclusively in relation to celestial orbits and heavenly bodies. However, after 1789, it was brought down from the astronomical realm and deliberately restricted to the purely political sphere.

Viewed from this perspective, the term “Revolution” confines man entirely to the external, material world and severs him from Transcendental and Metaphysical realities. It effectively veils and smothers the spiritual dimension of human existence — exactly as occurred during the French Revolution, and as was perpetuated by both capitalists and communists, who were never concerned with man’s spiritual nature.

Consequently, when the Islamists began to adopt this word and dress their modern tendencies in the garb of an “Islamic ideal,” they fell into the very trap of modernity. In doing so, they reduced Islam from its Transcendental and Metaphysical level to the narrow confines of political activity. Where Islam had once rested upon the foundations of tawḥīd, īmān, and spiritual purification (tazkiyah), they made political power and the establishment of rule the primary concern — subordinating faith, Divine Unity, and spiritual refinement to the demands of governance.

This is the most profound deviation — a hallmark of the modern tendency of which they remain largely unaware and indifferent.

Allah, the Exalted, nowhere in the Qur’an commands the Muslims to prioritises the establishment of a political system or governance. Rather, wherever He addresses them, He calls them to righteousness and virtuous deeds. This is because authority and rule come from Allah alone. When people act righteously, He grants them righteous rulers; and when they increase in sin, He subjects them to oppressive rulers.

Here Allah speaks of faith (īmān), righteous action (ʿamal), and virtuous deeds, and it is alongside these that He promises representation and authority (Khilafah) upon the earth. Yet Modernised Muslims present the matter in exactly the opposite way: for them, the primary and fundamental task is the establishment of a governing system, after which faith and righteous action are supposed to follow automatically.

This is the inversion of the Transcendental principle and Metaphysical truth. Just as the French revolutionaries inverted the traditional order and severed themselves from Transcendental realities, these Muslims — caught in the grip of modernity — have inverted the same principles. They apply truth in the reverse direction and drag Islam down from its Metaphysical station to the purely political level.

Although they claim that “revolution” is merely the end result, when one examines their methodology and theoretical framework more closely, they inevitably lean toward the models of Lenin, Mao, and Che Guevara. And if any of them attempts to describe the life of the Prophet ﷺ using the word “revolution,” they immediately reduce his blessed existence to a purely political narrative. In doing so, they completely overlook the immense Transcendental and Metaphysical significance of the advent of Muhammad the Arab ﷺ — the profound impact it had upon both the visible and invisible worlds.

As we have noted earlier, a word always draws its user toward its inherent reality and seeks to confine him within its own conceptual domain. Thus, even when they attempt to present the Prophet’s life as a political revolution, they themselves feel comfortable with this reduction — because his life was never merely political. It was far more spiritual and metaphysical than political. Political achievement came only at a later stage, as we have seen in the example from Sūrah al-Nūr mentioned above.

Such a reduction of Islam to a purely political level is a form of delusion that has no precedent in Islamic history. What is even more astonishing is that, in their excessive focus on power and governance, both groups have not only adopted the terminology of Western capitalism and communism, but have also confined their entire intellectual and mental criteria to the Western conceptual framework. This mirrors the behaviour of those colonised elites who, having been educated by the colonial powers, rose up against them politically, yet continued to impose the colonisers’ own modes of thought and standards upon their own societies even after achieving political independence.

The term “Revolution” and its associated vocabulary and implications are entirely Western in origin. Nevertheless, Muslims have been using this same word since the nineteenth century. For example, the second of the two groups we have discussed proudly labels itself “fundamentalist” on the basis of an arbitrary classification devised by the RAND Corporation, which divides Muslims into three categories:

1. Those involved in democratic politics — considered harmless to the West.

2. Those not involved in democratic politics but engaged in teaching, study, madrasas, and mosques — regarded as non-threatening so long as they do not connect with the third group.

3. Those who seek to establish Islam politically — viewed by the West as dangerous.

The non-democratic Islamists have enthusiastically accepted this third category as the most authentic (haqq), considering themselves superior to the other two. In doing so, they have ignored traditional principles and uncritically adopted the Western standard as the correct one. They have intensified their efforts to make their activities even more political, reasoning that since the enemy considers them the greatest threat, they must be on the right path.

Herein lies the greatest misfortune: once again, they reduce Islam to a purely political affair. By disregarding Transcendental principles and Metaphysical truth, they treat politics as the sole reality. There is no discussion of the spiritual world, no recognition of the levels of rūḥāniyyah, and no attention to the invisible realm. Instead, they are subtly yet forcefully pushed toward an intensely political orientation — exactly as we saw in the French Revolution: a complete severance from Metaphysical truth and confinement within a purely political horizon. As a result, they have come to believe that the political establishment of Islam is the “primary” goal of the religion, when in reality this is the gravest delusion of all.

The second group, which labels itself “fundamentalist” on the basis of the RAND Corporation’s classification, is in reality far from being fundamental in either thought or action.

The word “Fundamental” is etymologically derived from the Latin fundamentum, which means the foundation or the essential base of something. Thus, fundamentals refer to those who rely upon the true and original foundation. When the non-democratic Islamists claim the title of “fundamentalist” for themselves, we cannot accept their claim in good faith. Their political activism, their ideological framework, and their entire structure of reducing Islam to the political level are built upon the Western concepts of “Revolution”, borrowed from capitalist and communist sources. Even more striking is the fact that the very definition by which they declare themselves “fundamentalist” was cleverly implanted by Western think-tanks. In truth, this group should more accurately be described as mediocre or pseudo-fundamentalist. The real fundamentalists are those who belong to the second category in the RAND classification — the scholars engaged in teaching, studying, madrasas, and mosques.

When divine revelation (waḥy) first descended upon the earth, it was delivered directly into the heart of the Prophet ﷺ by Jibrā’īl al-Amīn. The Companions acquired that knowledge not merely through verbal transmission but through their direct companionship with him, absorbing both knowledge and spirituality (rūḥāniyyah). This chain of transmission (isnād) has been preserved continuously precisely by those who remain devoted to teaching and worship in madrasas and mosques. The fact that they appear politically irrelevant in the present age does not invalidate them. Islam was never revealed merely for politics — as we have shown earlier. On the contrary, it is this isnād alone that safeguards Islam from all alien ideologies and novel thoughts. Truth (ḥaqq) always remains with those who possess a continuous chain of transmission back to the Prophet ﷺ.

Therefore, if we are to call anyone “fundamentalist” in the true sense, it must be the traditional scholars and ulamā. They are the rightful heirs of the term Ghurabā’ (the strangers). To dismiss the ulamā as irrelevant for political expediency is clear proof of ignorance concerning Transcendental principles and Metaphysical truth. It also demonstrates that those afflicted by this disease have themselves fallen prey to the sickness of modernity and have reduced Islam to a purely political level — exactly as the West has done.

No prophet, upon receiving prophethood, was immediately commanded to establish a political system — whether Mūsā ﷺ, Yūsuf ﷺ, or any other. Political authority always came at a later stage, as a secondary or tertiary matter. According to the hadith, it is these scholars who are the true Ghurabā’. The condition for upholding truth is to be a scholar, to possess a sound isnād, and to remain free from all innovated thoughts. The very political framework they have adopted is itself a modern tendency, as we have seen throughout this discussion.

Another prominent tendency among these non-democratic Islamists clearly reveals their excessive attachment to politics and their disturbing disregard for traditional principles and proper epistemology. It is their famous slogan: “Daʿwah, Iʿdād, and Jihād.” This slogan, at its core, reflects a purely political ambition. It fails to ask the most fundamental questions: Who is giving the daʿwah? Does the caller possess the necessary qualifications to invite others to Islam? And does the one being called possess the capacity to receive that call without distortion — in the same authentic form preserved through the chain of transmission (isnād)?

When viewed through traditional principles, a very different order emerges. If we examine the Prophetic model closely, we see that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ first called the Companions to faith (īmān), taught them knowledge (ʿilm), and trained them in patience and spiritual discipline — as is evident in the majority of the Qur’anic verses revealed in Makkah. Only after this foundation of knowledge and spiritual purification (tazkiyah) did the stage of jihād come. Thus, the Prophetic sequence is: knowledge and spiritual refinement first, followed later by action at the political level.

In stark contrast, these pseudo-fundamentalists place politics at the very beginning and subordinate everything else to it. Once again, we arrive at the same conclusion: they have detached power and governance from their rightful and natural position. This is the very essence of modernity — the inversion of the traditional order.

In their approach, the acquisition of knowledge, moral refinement (akhlāq), and spiritual development are sidelined. Political power is prioritised first, with all other matters — including the individual’s qualification and preparedness — relegated to a secondary position. The person involved often possesses neither a sound chain of transmission in Sacred Law nor any clear idea of from whom he is learning. Thus, the traditional principle is inverted in the following manner:

Tradition: Tawḥīd, ʿIlm, and Tazkiyah — upon which the Caliphate (Khilāfah) is dependent.

The Lowered State to which it has been reduced:

Modern Mentality: The State or Khilāfah first — upon which Tawḥīd, knowledge, and spiritual purification are made dependent, though they are no longer considered strictly necessary.

In this way, the order established by Allah — preserved for centuries through authentic transmission — has been distorted and dragged down to a lower level.

Someone may object that what we have said concerning these pseudo-fundamentalists or mediocrities is untrue, and that they do in fact acknowledge these realities. The response is that these tendencies nevertheless constitute a widespread and deeply rooted pattern among them — a poisonous intellectual disease. Had they not been afflicted by it, such confusion and unrest would never have arisen. And if they claim to be upon the truth (ḥaqq), the question arises: Do they truly possess the knowledge required to distinguish between truth and falsehood (ḥaqq and bāṭil)? If they do possess such knowledge, from whom did they acquire it? And if they do not, then on what basis are they distinguishing truth from falsehood? Where is their chain of transmission of their knowledge (isnād)?

The plain reality is that they have no satisfactory answer to these questions. They do not truly know how to differentiate between ḥaqq and bāṭil. For them, the criterion of truth and falsehood is either the classification imposed by the RAND Corporation or the opinions of controversial scholars who issue fatwas against the scholarly consensus (ijmāʿ) within the circles of traditional ulamā. Still others take armed struggle and involvement in power politics as the sole measure of truth.

It should be noted, however, that the Taliban do not generally share this same mentality. Their traditional roots are not identical to those of Al-Qaeda. In this respect, the Taliban stand relatively closer to the truth, even though some people vaguely claim that the two are the same. In reality, they are not. There are significant differences in their origins, history, tendencies, and overall mindset.

This does not mean we view Al-Qaeda with outright disapproval. Our point is simply that Al-Qaeda cannot be taken as the sole standard of truth. It is possible that some among them may be free from the disease we have described. Our real concern is to highlight that around us there are many who are pseudo-fundamentalists and ignorant. By judging Islam solely through a political framework and criticising traditional scholars, they only strengthen this distortion and inversion.

It is quite possible that, living as we are in the final age, widespread political and ideological deviations will appear even among scholars of the traditional current. Yet the light of a true torch still produces more illumination than a candle. Even if distortions manifest among them at the political level, they will at least be able to recognises those scholars who are closer to the truth. And even if they suffer political defeat, they will never be swept away like emotion-driven people without any chain of transmission (isnād). This is the metaphysical strength of Sacred Knowledge and traditional principles: truth always remains with those who possess a sound chain of transmission or whose hearts are profoundly connected with Allah — even if they appear in society as the most irrelevant and outdated.

We see this clearly in the lineage of Ibrāhīm ﷺ. Allah had promised the descendants of Isḥāq ﷺ that a prophet would come from among them in the end times. Yet because of their obstinacy, He sent Muhammad ﷺ not from the line of Isḥāq but from the line of Ismāʿīl. Likewise, when Imām Mahdī ﷺ appears at the end of time, he too will come from the Qurayshī family of the Ismāʿīlī branch.

After the Ahl al-Bayt, the most important scholarly and spiritual chains of transmission (silsilah) in Islam are preserved precisely in this lineage. Now consider: those who possess neither sound knowledge of the Sharīʿah, nor any spiritual silsilah, nor any interest in understanding Metaphysical truth, nor any authentic isnād — neither scholarly nor spiritual — how can they possibly bring victory to Islam? Their ideological position is itself nothing but a purely political slogan, having no connection whatsoever with Metaphysical truth. How, then, can they work for Islam?

The truth is that never before in history has a generation appeared whose every tendency and mental orientation runs directly contrary to Traditional Principles. THIS IS THE GREATEST IRONY OF THE AGE!

I had a post regarding Ibn Arabi and his philosophy, in which he insisted on Ilhām and Kāshf as a valid source and form of knowledge through which we can know Allah, as it is acceptable through Ijmā’, as Imām Al-Ghāzali and scholars like Sah Waliullah Dehlāvi said about unveiling the truth. Nominalists and empiricists are extremely rigorous in thinking about Allah and his attributes, as Yad, wajh e,t c. and they think He has Shape “Bila kayfiyah”, or without likeness to anything. But it’s contradictory. Therefore, attributing anything resembling form, shape, or extension implies limitation, hence createdness.

Shape and determination belong to the order of created things which only belong to the corporeal order. If they say that He has shape but we don’t know the modality of His shape i.e, Yad, Wajhun, then at another point it is false, because, whenever you claim He has anything like created about His attributes, then He is limited to zāman(time) and makān(space), though they claim bila Kayf without affirming any modality to Him. zamān and makān belong to created things, not to who created them, and that’s why this is internally unstable. Affirmation without any modality still implies the conceptual form and the conceptual form belongs to the order of finite and rationality, and thus, purely rational and literalist theology in risk tashbīh, even unintentionally.

Now, return to the point. In that post, I’ve told the people that Akbarian Metaphysical is something that is beyond rational thinking itself, or more accurately, a combination of transcendental and mystical philosophy. Humans and their ability to reason are confined and limited, in other words, their ability to think is finite, on the other hand Allah the most exalted is One and unique, he belongs to the infinite. And that is why, what is infinite we cannot imagine with finite or through our limited thinking. And that is why Ibn Sina and some other philosophers make mistakes in comprehending Allah through rational means (but his ontological approach to the universe is awesome), because of this incomplete metaphysical approach. Rationality itself has some kind of limitations, though it belongs to the Intellect or to the first principle. Without the transcendental knowledge and the knowledge of Kāshf, rationality is unable to comprehend Allah the most exalted.

Mutkāllimun and some of Mutāakkhirun’s approaches are rational, limited, and finite. While Mutāakkhirun and later theologians’ approach was supra-rational, Kāshf Ilhām, as Imam Al-Ghazali, Āyn-Kudāt Al-Hamdāni, and Shah Waliullah Dehlavi.

It’s very important to note, what Sufi says regarding their hāll, as fānā, and Baqā is actually an attempt to write what they saw (it’s noteworthy that, hāll and fanā are not the stage of consciousness, it is the stage where human consciousness enters the realm of Transcendent order, most higher realm or none physical space, total unity) but here is the twist. Language and letters are a form of limitations, it’s finite not infinite as human expressions are finite, and that’s why what is confined to an extent, it cannot actualize properly anything which belongs to the infinite. If someone insists on explaining or actualising what is infinite, then, he is actually dragging the infinite under the condition of finite, which is actually a misapplication of metaphysical principle. And it is the whole point where some people fall into deviation with their inappropriate reasoning and think He has hand and face though without affirming any modality to His attributes, but still, there is some point which indicates modality or tashbīh if we think deeply. It’s a Nominalist approach which results in later Hanbali-Taymi making tāshbíh with Allah.

In whatever the case is, a true infinite is inconceivable to any human comprehension, what we actually grasped and modern science claim about something infinite, we can call properly them indefinite not infinite, even, modern symbols of infinite ∞ still bound with place, we can measure it and that’s why it divisible, it’s has its volume and sound, which is attributes of finite not infinite. As is the case with infinite numbers or infinitesimal calculus which is absurd. Leibnitz was also skeptical about the notion of infinity, whatever the field it belongs, mathematics or geometry, as infinite numbers or very extended volume, what they claim to be infinite, René Guénon says (about infinitesimal calculus) it is indefinite, such as the case of atoms, cause What is belongs to the time and space, we can divide it indefinitely, not infinitely, this is also to the atom, we can divide it more and more in indefinite manner. As we indicated, in time and space everything is divisible, no matter how small its form may be. Akbarian Metaphysics rejected the notion of atoms as indivisible while the Ashā’ri accepted it in their prime, but the Mutāakkhirūn were skeptical regarding atoms. This is another example of the limitation of reasoning and the supremacy of mystical/Transcendental knowledge.

Whoever assumes that engagement in Islamic knowledge leads to stagnation in the cause of Islam—as some are inclined to think today—has fallen into a profound confusion. Ignorance confines man within darkness, whereas knowledge (ʿilm) guides him toward illumination. This is a perennial truth; and when that knowledge is connected to Revelation, its significance surpasses that of any other domain or ideological construct.

The cultivation of knowledge has never been the cause of the decline of Muslims. Rather, it is political inertia and the moral corruption of individuals that have historically led to the fall of Muslim empires. Indeed, every civilization and polity is erected upon a foundation of knowledge. The decline of civilizations bears no intrinsic relation to knowledge itself, but rather to the degradation of conduct, mentality, and ethical principles.

If we consider the example of Shah Waliullah of Delhi, we observe that during a period marked by the weakening of the Mughal order, the aggression of the Marathas, and the political as well as spiritual decline of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, he did not merely devote himself to scholarly pursuits. Rather, he also engaged actively in addressing political realities. It is reported that Ahmad Shah Abdali had no initial intention of intervening in India; it was only upon the counsel of Shah Waliullah that he advanced, seeking to break the power of the Marathas and restore balance to the Mughal authority—though ultimately, the Divine Will decreed otherwise.

It is precisely within this context of political stagnation that Shah Waliullah produced his major works:, including Hujjat Allah al-Balighah, Izalat al-Khafa, Lamahat, Budur al-Bazighah, among others. Moreover, it was in this very period that he initiated a systematic and academic engagement with Hadith studies in India, while also elaborating upon the states of the soul and the subtle dimensions of existence within the framework of Tasawwuf. All of this unfolded not despite stagnation, but in its midst

Similarly, if one reflects upon Ibn Taymiyyah, one finds that during his time the Tatar invasions devastated large portions of the Muslim world. Yet his pen did not cease. Intellectual and scholarly activity in Syria did not come to a halt. On the contrary, he articulated his own distinctive doctrinal trajectory precisely during this era. He engaged both in the field of Jihad against the Tatars and in the field of knowledge and I’lm. That said, it remains another matter that significant points of disagreement exist with him in domains such as Ilm al-Kalam, the attributes of Allah(ṣifāt), and aspects of fiqh and hadith.

The essential point is this: in the history of Islam, knowledge has never been the cause of decline. The notion that it constitutes a pathology of modernity. There are even accounts indicating that during times of truce in warfare, warriors would sit in circles of instruction (Dars). Yet today we observe a contrary tendency: a group whose mode of thinking proceeds in opposition to traditional principles. Such inversion of fundamental principles inevitably leads to deviation (ḍalāl). Not only do they abstain from the pursuit of knowledge themselves, but they also discourage others—invoking the of “Islamic victory.”

To clarify further, consider Ilm al-Kalam. This discipline engages with the divine attributes, with verses and hadiths whose meanings are not immediately transparent, and with questions that admit of no simplistic interpretation. It also extends to reflections upon the structure and states of the cosmos, functioning as a foundation for both physics and metaphysics. Its (معيار) criterion is Revelation—Qur’an and Sunnah—followed by intellect (ʿaql), which serves to understand the transmitted (naql) and to explore the realities of existence. The intellectual and scientific achievements of Muslims cannot be dissociated from this kalāmic engagement—this is evident to anyone acquainted with its scope.

Yet there exists a group that claims engagement with such disciplines leads to stagnation in political victory! In contrast, the traditional scholars demonstrate precisely the opposite. These individuals exert considerable effort to prevent people from accessing knowledge, in order to secure their own political objectives. One must seriously question what kind of “victory” can arise from keeping the common people deprived of knowledge.

Any person endowed with a sound intellect can discern that such intentions are either corrupt or, at the very least, incompetent. For they fail to recognize that they are leading others into deviation. This is what may be termed an inversion of traditional principles: a movement in opposition to the very foundations, the inevitable outcome of which is misguidance.

As previously indicated, instead of cultivating individuals grounded in the traditional intellectual and spiritual heritage, they confine them within an atmosphere dominated by political aims—power, governance, and a reductionist reading of Islam. Their followers remain trapped within this closed framework; regardless of the passage of time, they do not advance intellectually beyond it. This is fundamentally contrary to the traditional paradigm.

Islam, in its essence, is not reducible to a political movement.

Those who operate within this confined framework may be described as “intellectual zombies”—individuals who have lost independent thought, detached from tradition, yet imagining that they are working toward its triumph. The very framework that confines them—a purely political schema—is itself an expression of modernity. To enclosed within a power-centric understanding is one of the defining maladies of the modern world: a reduction to singularity, whereas Islam affirms a principial duality that transcends such reduction.

In our most recent work, we demonstrated how ʿilm (authentic knowledge) is gradually withdrawn and how the ignorant come to appear as the self-appointed contractors of Islam. These are individuals who uphold ideologies without knowledge, yet remain utterly unaware of their own ignorance. In Arabic discourse, such a condition is exemplified by the well-known expression al-jahl al-murakkab (compound ignorance). Outwardly, their conduct and speech may appear highly pious and God-fearing, yet in reality they are both cunning and ignorant.

The subject of our present discussion is a popular slogan: “the interest of the Ummah above all maslak (schools/traditions).” (মাসলাকের উর্ধ্বে উঠে উম্মাহর খেদমত!)Our aim is to analyze this slogan in the light of reality and to uncover the true intentions of those who employ it.

To begin with, we must first understand what Maslak actually is, and how Madhhab and Maslak historically came into existence. The divisions and methodological schools that we observe today within the Islamic epistemological tradition did not exist during the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ or the era of the Companions. At that time, reliance was placed directly upon the words and guidance of the Prophet ﷺ. However, following the passing of the Prophet ﷺ and with the advent of the eras of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar (رضي الله عنهما), the rapid expansion of Muslim territories gave rise to unprecedented legal and social issues—issues that had not arisen during the Prophet’s lifetime.

To derive solutions from the Qur’an and Sunnah for these new circumstances, distinct methodological approaches began to emerge among the Companions themselves. One such approach developed in Madinah, while another took shape in Kufah. These developments matured during the Umayyad period, by which time the foundations of jurisprudential schools—shaped by the intellectual orientations of various Companions—had already been laid. Through the efforts of the Tābiʿūn, these foundations were systematized further, and under the great Imams of the Madhāhib, they reached their full and refined form.

This process pertains to the sciences of Hadith, uṣūl al-fiqh, rijāl, and fiqh. In other words, the structured disciplines of Sharīʿah knowledge that we recognize today were organized much later. Even the formal compilation of Hadith began during the era of ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. Likewise, the compilation of the Qur’an was completed during the caliphate of ʿUthmān (رضي الله عنه), who standardized a single muṣḥaf for the entire Ummah. It was also ʿUthmān (رضي الله عنه) who introduced the additional adhān for Jumuʿah. These were acts of learned ijtihād, firmly grounded in the Qur’an and Sunnah, and undertaken in service of the Sharīʿah. This domain pertains to the outward and social dimensions of Islamic law.

Simultaneously, the discipline of taṣawwuf emerged, addressing the inner and spiritual dimension of the human being. The Qur’an and Hadith clearly establish that the human being is not a singular entity: one aspect is corporeal, bound to the physical world, while the other is the rūḥ (spirit). The inner realm itself is layered—rūḥ and nafs—and the nafs is further divided by Allah into multiple states. Likewise, human cognition varies between ʿaql (intellect) and fiṭrah (primordial disposition). Extensive scholarly discussions arose around these realities, giving rise to taṣawwuf as a formal discipline.

Within every recognized madhhab, practices of taṣawwuf addressing the inner purification of the human being were cultivated. This tradition was accepted and transmitted within the Ummah for over thirteen centuries. Only in the eighteenth century did a group influenced by Kharijite tendencies emerge—claiming exclusive correctness for their creed while deeming all others erroneous—who categorically rejected taṣawwuf, that is, the science of the inner spiritual world of the human species. Ironically, they call themselves Salafis, yet their attitudes closely resemble those of modernists. They reject spirituality because it pertains to the unseen inner realm; modernity rejects it for the same reason—because it cannot be empirically sensed or observed.

Knowledge of the spiritual realm is inherently more complex than empiricist knowledge. As a result, such individuals avoid the psychological and intellectual effort required to engage with it. Modernists, in turn, succeed in cultivating a group that has never glimpsed the ocean of knowledge, preferring instead to confine themselves within the narrow limits of their own ignorance—while boldly claiming to be the true followers of Islam.

Over time, the various madhāhib became dominant in different regions: the Hanafi school in the Indian subcontinent; Hanafi-Maturidi in Turkey and the Balkans; Maliki-Ashʿari in North Africa; Shafiʿi-Ashʿari in Southeast Asia, Egypt, and Greater Syria; and Hanbali in Saudi Arabia (with so-called Salafis selectively appropriating the Hanbali legacy through cherry-picking). In the Indian subcontinent, however, there is no independent “Deobandi Madhhab or Maslak .” Rather, Deobandi refers to Hanafi jurisprudence, Maturidi theology, and Naqshbandi spiritual training.

Just as jurisprudential schools developed to address legal questions, taṣawwuf developed structured methods—ṭuruq (paths)—to discipline and refine the inner self. Qadiri and Naqshbandi are examples of such methodologies. Shah Waliullah Muhaddith-e-Dehlavi and Shah Ismail Shahid were Naqshbandi; through them, Deoband and even the Taliban inherited the Naqshbandi tradition. Sirajuddin Haqqani, leader of the Haqqani Network, is likewise a Naqshbandi Sufi who received spiritual authorization (khilāfah), which is why he is addressed as “Khalifah”—a title denoting successful completion of spiritual stations.

The emergence of madhāhib and masālik among scholars was primarily an effort to preserve the Qur’an and Sunnah and to distinguish truth from falsehood—whether in response to Shiʿite doctrines, Kharijite excesses during the era of early political conflict, or later deviant sects. Thus, anyone genuinely seeking to serve Islam must do so through these established traditions. Opposition to the madhāhib and traditional epistemological frameworks of Islam inevitably aligns with deviant sectarianism, because these traditions constitute an authenticated chain of transmission (isnād)—the very foundation of the science of rijāl.

No individual possesses the authority to bypass this chain. Any such attempt constitutes an illegitimate intrusion. Even if someone seeks to propose something new, they must first acquire knowledge through this Mutawātir scholarly tradition under recognized authorities.

We now return to the slogan of “rising above maslak”. (মাসলাকের উর্ধ্বে)” Historically, every deviant sect begins by advocating transcendence of established schools. In practice, this means inventing something new—an act that requires the rank of a muj­tahid, which these individuals neither possess nor claim openly. Instead of affirming continuity with the inherited scholarly legacy, they rebel against it, embodying an Islamic form of Protestantism.

Such individuals imagine themselves superior in understanding to generations of scholars. They attempt to impose a singular interpretation of tawḥīd, claiming—explicitly or implicitly—that no one before them truly understood the meaning of the kalimah. How profoundly misguided must a person be to make such a statement! Moreover, there exists an explicit fatwa regarding him to be a Kharijite ( our intention to Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi, in Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn, and in the work Al-Muhannad ). Furthermore, even his own brother, Sulaymān ibn Najdī, consistently criticized his extremism and Kharijite tendencies throughout his life. Remarkably, nearly every Kharijite movement since the eighteenth century has converged ideologically with this so-called “true creed.”

Their followers share common traits: arbitrary reinterpretations in the name of tawḥīd, selective misuse of Ibn Taymiyyah’s writings, and the pretense that no Islamic authority exists beyond Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab—even though they grossly misrepresent Ibn Taymiyyah through cherry-picking. When Najdi ideology became widely recognized as Kharijite, Rashid Rida facilitated its liberal rebranding under the label “Salafi”—a purely nominal association with the Salaf, devoid of authentic methodological continuity.

Whenever someone calls for abandoning Madhhab and Maslak, they are in reality rebelling against the traditional scholarly heritage and promoting an unqualified individual’s right to interpret the Qur’an and Sunnah at will—selecting only those fragments that adorn their ignorance. The same mentality led to the collapse of Christian tradition through rebellion against clerical authority. History, once again, is repeating itself.

The term “intellectual zombie” is one I encountered somewhere in passing. Be that as it may, it designates those individuals who possess no thought or intelligence properly their own. They have never learned to question, nor do they know how to formulate a question. They are capable of a certain exercise of thought, it is true; yet this thought is never their own—it is borrowed, repeated from others, a mere mimicry of ideas received from without. They lack the intellectual disposition that would enable them to examine critically the notions and opinions current in their milieu. This phenomenon may also be called intellectual mimicry: the endless reiteration of what has been heard or read elsewhere, without the intervention of any personal judgment or any genuine assimilation. There is no real discernment, no penetration of the principles that alone could give solidity to such borrowed fragments.

Whoever wishes to labor in the domain of Islam, especially in its intellectual defense or exposition, must above all possess a clear and firm grasp of Islamic epistemology and of the traditional heritage (turāth). The foundation of their knowledge ought to rest squarely upon Islamic principles of knowledge; if this foundation is absent, then whatever they claim to build will be fragile and without substance. It is impossible for a person who has no clear and adequate knowledge of these matters to engage seriously in work concerning them without, in reality, producing more fitnah (intellectual and spiritual disorder) than benefit. Even if their intention be pure, they will not attain what they imagine they seek, for the essential foundation is lacking from the outset.

Another point that must be known is the clear understanding of contemporary bāṭil (false) fitnahs, among which the intellectual fitnah holds a prominent place in our time. The confrontation with an intellectual fitnah can only be carried out by means of the intellect itself. In the Islamic traditional heritage this science bears the name ʿilm al-kalām. When the science of kalām arose in the Muslim world, its practitioners used it precisely to refute the Greek philosophers and to safeguard the Islamic creed (ʿaqīdah). Most of the intellectual reasonings deployed today against Islam are, in their essence, derived from those same Greek sources—often, moreover, presented in a distorted or inverted form.

Sometimes these notions are falsely attributed or mispresented. For example, the ideas of Plato or Socrates bear only a distant resemblance to what certain modern materialists claim to inherit from them. Although the latter invoke the Greek legacy, they in fact represent far more the Roman spirit of pragmatism and exteriority than the authentic Hellenic intellectuality.

What is truly astonishing, however, is to observe a certain group today who mock and deride ʿilm al-kalām—that very instrument by which the Muslims of old defended their intellectual patrimony, refuted doctrines of kufr, and gave systematic form to the defense of the creed. This science was recognized by the four madhāhib, even if the Ḥanbalīs did not adopt it in its entirety; they nevertheless acknowledged its importance. Yet without a proper understanding of ʿilm al-kalām, it is impossible to confront the intellectual fitnahs of the present age, just as it is impossible to understand modernity itself.

For to understand ‘modernity’ one must first know what ‘antiquity’ or ‘tradition’ truly is. Whoever claims to comprehend modernity while remaining ignorant of tradition is claiming to understand something without possessing the very principles that would make such understanding possible. His assertion may accidentally touch upon a partial truth, yet it lacks any solid ground. Consequently, those who despise this essential knowledge—which the predecessors used as a weapon against infidelity—and who instead take pleasure in their own ignorance and intellectual stagnation, reveal by this very attitude how little they truly contribute to the triumph of Islam. Their mentality betrays the state of their intelligence, which stands in direct contradiction to their claims of “working for the victory of Islam.” Such claims are unreal and disconnected from reality.

Where Allah Most High has placed knowledge above all else and ranked the scholars after the Prophets, these people invert the very principle itself. They imagine that their ignorance and deliberate remaining in a state of intellectual torpor will somehow serve the triumph of Islam. They do not even know what the traditional current of Islam actually is, because the chain of transmission (silsilah), the adāb, and the living connection to knowledge are absent in them. By means of such inversion they can only drift further into error, never toward the fundamental principles.

These individuals—intellectually stagnant, spiritually diseased in their faculty of discernment, and profoundly ignorant in matters of knowledge—constitute, in the fullest sense, the representation of the intellectual zombie. When they simultaneously refuse to acknowledge the intellectual heritage of Islam (by which their predecessors repelled kufr) and mock the inner dimension (taṣawwuf) that formed an integral part of the daily life of the great masters of old, it becomes evident that they are by no means free from the modern malady.

As we alluded above, whoever wishes to revive a tradition must first know it deeply. How can one who does not even know the tradition confront the present age? To oppose modernity, one must possess a living knowledge of tradition and of how the traditional chain functions. Without the traditional principles as foundation, any reaction against modernity will be illusory: the absence of a true foundation causes modernity itself—unrecognized—to become the hidden foundation. This is precisely what we observe among many contemporaries: they claim to follow the predecessors, yet unconsciously employ the frameworks and terminology of modernity. Such a tendency may be called mediocre, although its orientation differs from that of the moderates.

The moderates are those whose tendency is to retain only a vague Muslim identity while treating the rest of the Islamic ordinances as secondary or merely “cultural customs.” In their speech, behavior, and overall representation they mirror the modern West. The mediocres, by contrast, claim to uphold tradition and may even adopt certain of its outward forms; yet they never truly enter into it. They approach tradition through modern technology and modern conceptual frameworks. Tradition, however, is nothing other than the transmission of knowledge and spirituality sina bi-sina (heart to heart), whose chain connects directly to the Prophet ﷺ.Both moderates and mediocres remain distant from the traditional principles. In the true sense in which the word “fundamentalist” is sometimes used—denoting attachment to the fundamental principles—neither group embodies it.

ইলম মানুষের মধ্যে থেকে উঠিয়ে নেওয়া হবে কেয়ামতের আগে এবং একটা সময় এমন আসবে যে মানুষ কুরআন পড়বে, কিন্তু তা বুঝবে না, এরপর একদিন আল্লাহ তায়ালা জিবরাঈল আলাইহিস সালামের মাধ্যমে কুরআনের অক্ষরকে সম্পূর্ণভাবে উঠিয়ে নিবেন— এমন একটা হাদিস বর্ণিত হয়েছে। কিন্তু আপনারা কখনো ভাবছেন যে কিভাবে আল্লাহ তায়ালা ইলমকে উঠিয়ে নিবেন এবং মানুষ মূর্খদেরকে অনুসরণ করতে শুরু করবে আলেমদের বিপরীতে?

আরবীতে একটা বই আছে صفحات من صبر العلماء এটা অনেক প্রসিদ্ধ একটা কিতাব, এখানে বিভিন্ন উলামা মাশায়েখ এবং সাহাবীদের বর্ণনা আছে যে তারা একটা হাদিস বা একটা মাসআলা জানার জন্য কতদূর, কত মাইলের সফর অতিক্রম করেছেন, কেউ কেউ তো একটা কিতাব পাওয়ার জন্য বছর কি বছরের পথ অতিক্রম করেছেন, অপেক্ষা করেছেন‌। এটা ছিলো ইলম শেখার প্রাচীন পদ্ধতি। আবার অন্যদিকে আধুনিক যুগ ও ইন্টারনেট আসার আগ পর্যন্ত সময়ের কথা চিন্তা করেন, মানুষ যখন কোন কিছু শিখতে চাইতো, তখন তারা আলেমদের কাছে যেতো, তাদের সাথে কথা বলে আলোচনা করতো, কিতাবের পাতায় সময় দিয়ে দিয়ে তথ্য বের করে আনতো, অথবা যারা কোনো একটা ইলমের ব্যাপারে আগ থেকেই জানে, তাদের কাছে গিয়ে সময় দিতো, ইলম অর্জন করতো।

অর্থাৎ ইলম এবং জ্ঞান অর্জন একটা প্রসেস বা ধারাবাহিকতা, এটা এমন কোনো বিষয় না যে, আপনি চাইলেন আর গ্রহণ করে নিলেন। কোনো কিছুর "তথ্য" গ্রহন করা আর "ইলম অর্জনের" মধ্যে পার্থক্য আছে। ইলম অর্জন হচ্ছে আপনি ধারাবাহিকতা বজায় রাখছেন, আপনার ইলমের সিলসিলা সনদের মাধ্যমে নবী সাল্লাল্লাহু আলাইহি ওয়াসাল্লাম পর্যন্ত যাবে, কারণ ট্রাডিশনাল ইসলামিক এপিস্টেমোলজি অনুযায়ী ইলম হচ্ছে নূর, আর এই নূর নবী সাল্লাল্লাহু আলাইহি ওয়াসাল্লামকে জিবরাঈল আলাইহিস সালাম বুকে চাপা দিয়ে দিয়েছিলেন এবং তারপরেই নবী সাল্লাল্লাহু আলাইহি ওয়াসাল্লাম পড়তে শুরু করেন, এটা একটা গুরুত্বপূর্ণ ইভেন্ট ইলমের ব্যাপারে। অন্যদিকে তথ্য হচ্ছে আপনার এই জ্ঞানের কোনো সোর্স নাই বা আপনি কার কাছ থেকে শিখছেন আপনি জানেন না, আপনার জ্ঞানটা সঠিক হলেও ইসলামী এপিস্টেমোলজির মানদণ্ডে উত্তীর্ণ না হওয়ার কারণে আপনার সেই জ্ঞান যদি ইসলামিক হয় এবং সঠিকও হয়, তবুও সেটা নিছকই "তথ্য"; কোনো ইলম না।

ফলে, ইন্টারনেট আবিষ্কার হওয়ার পর এখন আমরা যা দেখছি যে, মানুষ ইলম অর্জনের জন্য ট্রাডিশনাল ধারার বিপরীতে ইন্টারনেটের প্রতি ঝুঁকে গেছে, কারণ তা "সহজ" (বিপরীতে ট্রাডিশনাল পদ্ধতি কষ্টকর; কিন্তু ইফেক্টিভ প্রসেস, ব্যাহ্যিক এবং রুহানি, ইসোটেরিক এবং এক্সোটেরিক। এজন্য আল্লাহ বলেছেন, "নিশ্চিতভাবেই কষ্টের সাথে রয়েছে স্বস্তি")। এটা ট্রাডিশনাল ধারার বিরুদ্ধে একধরনের অনিচ্ছাকৃত বিদ্রোহ যা ইসলামী মানসিকতার সাথে যায় না। তাদের এই কোনো যোগসূত্র বিচ্ছিন্ন তথ্য কনজিউম করার মানসিকতা যা আসলে "সহজ" সালাফ এবং আকাবিরদের জীবনের বিপরীতে, তাই তারা ইন্টারনেট থেকে যেই তথ্য গ্রহন করছে, সেটাকে তারা ইলম মনে করতে শুরু করেছে। অথচ ইলম অর্জন করা আর তথ্য কনজিউম করা ভিন্ন বিষয়।

আমি উপরে বলেছি ইলম অর্জন হচ্ছে একটা ধারাবাহিকতা, এটা একটা প্রসেস, এটার নির্দিষ্ট পদ্ধতি ও শর্ত আছে। কেননা, যখন মানুষ সেই ধারাবাহিকতা বজায় রেখে ইলমি শাস্ত্রের কোনো বিষয়ে কনক্লুশনে আছে বা সেই জ্ঞানের সীমারেখায় পৌছায়, তখন এটা শুধু তার বাহ্যিক জ্ঞানকেই বৃদ্ধি করে না, বরং তাদের আধ্যাত্মিক জগতে প্রভাব বিস্তার করে, তাতে বিভিন্ন স্তর ও শেপ তৈরি করে, তার দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি ও চিন্তা কাঠামোতে পরিবর্তন নিয়ে আসে। ইলম অর্জনের এই ধারাবাহিকতা শুধু তাদের বাহ্যিক ইলম না, বরং আধ্যাত্মিক জগতের সংস্পর্শ নিয়ে যায়, তার মর্যাদা বুলন্দ করে। আর এটাকেই আল্লাহ তায়ালা বলেছেন, "যারা জানে আর যারা জানে না- তারা কি কখনো সমান হতে পারে?" কারণ সেই নূর থাকা আর না থাকার মধ্যে পার্থক্য তৈরি করে।

অন্যদিকে "তথ্য" (information about something) গ্রহন করতে সেই কষ্ট করতে হয় না, সেই ইলম অর্জনের লম্বা প্রক্রিয়া ও ধারাবাহিক প্রসেসর মধ্যে দিয়ে যেতে হয় না, বরং ইন্টারনেট ক্লিক করো আর গ্রহণ করো। ইন্টারনেটের শুরুর দিকে তবুও একটা বিষয় জানার জন্য বা কোন একটা উপসংহারে আসতে লম্বা সময় দিতে হতো, কিন্তু এখন দিতে হচ্ছে কয়েক মিনিট (reels)! অর্থাৎ জানার বা ইলম অর্জনের সেই দীর্ঘ সময় আরো সঙ্কীর্ণ হচ্ছে, ফলে ইলমের যেই আধ্যাত্মিক প্রভাব আছে তা মানুষের ধরাছোঁয়ার বাইরেই থেকে যাচ্ছে, তাদের বিপুল পরিমাণ তথ্য জানা তাদেরকে আধ্যাত্মিকভাবে সেই উন্নত স্তরে নিচ্ছে না বরং তাদের আরো নিচের দিকে ধাবিত ধাবিত করছে (downward direction)। আগে একটা হাদিস জানতে যেখানে মাস সফর করতে হতো এবং কমপক্ষে সপ্তাহ, এখন সেটা কম দিনের মধ্যে চলে এসেছে, ইন্টারনেট আসার পর ঘন্টা, আর এখন মিনিটের মধ্যে মানুষ উপসংহার টানছে। ফলে, নিশ্চিতভাবেই এই তথ্য কনজিউম করার মধ্যে কোনো একটা কিছু মিসিং হচ্ছে যা আগে হয়নি। ফলে, তারা ইনফরমেশন কালেক্ট করলেও ইলম অর্জন করতে পারছে না, যেটা কাইন্ড অফ জাহালত বা মূর্খতা।

এখন ইসলামপন্থীদের যেই ধারাটা ইন্টারনেট থেকে শিখে এবং তথাকথিত "সালাফি" (যেটা তাদের এই কান্ডজ্ঞানহীন দাবির সাথে সাংঘর্ষিক) বা তাওহীদের একমাত্র ধারক বাহক, তাদের এই সমস্ত বিষয়ের অনেক মিল পাওয়া যায় এবং মুসলিমদের একটা বৃহৎ অংশ যারা তাদের মতো না, কিন্তু জ্ঞানার্জনের এই শর্টকাট প্রসেস যা— মানুষের আধ্যাত্মিক জগতে কোনো প্রভাব ফেলে না- থেকে বাঁচতে পারেনি। ফলে প্রকৃত ইলম এখন আলেমদের মধ্যে সীমাবদ্ধ হয়ে যাচ্ছে এবং তারা সমাজের মেইনস্ট্রিম হওয়ার পরিবর্তে আড়ালে থেকে যাচ্ছে এবং এমনসব লোক ইসলাম এবং শরিয়তের ঠিকাদার হওয়ার ভান‌ করছে যারা আসলে মূর্খ এবং সমাজের আরো কিছু মানুষ তাদেরকে অনুসরণ করছে, যারা তাদের আবেগ (sentiment) দিয়ে পরিচালিত জ্ঞান (intellectual) দিয়ে না। সুতরাং হাদিসে যেখানে নবী সাল্লাল্লাহু আলাইহি ওয়াসাল্লাম গুরাবাদের দিকে ইঙ্গিত করেছেন, তারা হবে আলেম ওলামাদের একটা দল, যারা শরিয়তের ইলমের প্রকৃত ধারক হবেন (এমন‌সব লোক না, যারা নিছকই শরিয়তের রাজনৈতিক বিজয় নিয়ে উদ্বিগ্ন কিন্তু শরিয়ত আসলেই কি– এই বিষয়ে মূর্খ এবং না আছে তাদের মধ্যে কোয়ালিফিকেশন এই জ্ঞানকে ধারণ করার), আর ওই সময়টাতে এমন সব মূর্খ মানুষ শরিয়তের ঠিকাদার হবে, যারা আসলে শরিয়ত সম্পর্কে জানে‌ না, এজন্য বলা হয়েছে তারা নিজেরা গোমরাহ হবে এবং অন্যদেরকে গোমরাহ করবে।

সুতরাং ইলম অর্জনের সময় কমে যাওয়া এবং তা অর্জনের ধারাবাহিকতা যা খেলাফতের সময়ে ছিলো এবং তার পতনের মধ্য দিয়ে এই ধারাবাহিকতার পতন হয়েছে, তা দিন, ঘন্টা এবং মিনিটের মধ্যে চলে আসার একটা সাইন (sign) এবং নিদর্শন যে আল্লাহ তায়ালা ইলমকে ধীরে ধীরে উঠিয়ে নিচ্ছেন এবং তা আস্তে আস্তে আলেমদের (এবং আলেমদের মধ্যেও এমনসব আলেমদের মধ্যে সীমাবদ্ধ হচ্ছে যারা আধ্যাত্মীকতরা স্তরে পৌঁছাতে সক্ষম হয়েছে) মধ্যে সীমাবদ্ধ হচ্ছে।‌ কারণ আল্লাহ শরিয়তকে নিছকই বাহ্যিক বিধানাবলীর সমষ্টি হিসেবে দেননি, এর আধ্যাত্মিক জগত আছে, অবস্থান ও স্তর আছে, যেমনিভাবে আল্লাহ মানুষকে শুধু শরীর দেননি বরং আত্মিক জগত আছে, এর স্তর বিন্যাস আছে। কিন্তু এখন ইসলামপন্থীদের মধ্যেও এমন গ্রুপ আছে যারা শরিয়তকে নিছকই বাহ্যিকভাবে স্বীকার করে, আধ্যাত্মিককে নয়, তারা আত্মাকে স্বীকার করে, আধ্যাত্মিকতা নয়, গায়েব বিশ্বাস করে, এর স্তর বিন্যাস নয়! (যদিও তাদের এই অবস্থান লজিক্যালি হাস্যকর) অর্থ্যাৎ আল্লাহ তায়ালা বাহ্যিক এবং আধ্যাত্মিক এই দুই মেরুর মাধ্যমে যেভাবে বিন্যস্ত করেছিলেন, তারা একভাবে এটাকে অস্বীকার করছে, যেমনটা আমরা প্রোটেস্ট্যান্ট খৃষ্টানদের মধ্যে দেখি, তারা প্রভাবিত ছিলো র্যাশনালিটির মাধ্যমে, যা নিছকই ব্যাক্তির ছোট্ট মস্তিষ্কের ক্ষমতার মধ্যে আবদ্ধ,‌ এর উর্ধ্বের কোনো কিছু থাকতে পারে-তা সে চিন্তা করতে পারে না। যদিও এই দুই গ্রুপের মধ্যে বিশাল পার্থক্য আছে, তবে সিমিলারিটি হলো তারা কেউ তাদের 'ইন্ডিভিজিলুয়াটির' উর্ধ্বে যেতে পারেনি, তারা তাদের মস্তিষ্কের সীমাবদ্ধ ক্ষমতায় আবদ্ধ।

এখানে স্বভাবতই মেটাফিজিক্স নিয়ে আলোচনা করতে হয়, যা ইংরেজিতে লিখেছি, কারণ জ্ঞানের কিছু শাখা সব স্তরের মানুষের জন্য না, যারা আগ্রহী তারা ব্লগে পড়ে নিয়ে পারেন। তবে এতটুকু বুঝতে পারলে এটা স্পষ্ট যে আক্ষরিকতা বা অক্ষরবাদ প্রকৃত অর্থেই মূর্খতার একটা উন্নত স্তর। কারণ মানুষ তখন নিজের অজ্ঞতা জ্ঞান মনে করতে শুরু করে। যেমন আজকের যুগে আমরা দেখি শরিয়তের ব্যাপারে মূর্খ লোকেরা আলেমদের উপরে কথা বলে। আরো আশ্চর্যের ব্যাপার হচ্ছে, যখন আপনি আধ্যাত্মিক জগত অস্বীকার করছেন তখন এর অর্থ হচ্ছে ম্যাটেরিয়ালিজম। কারণ ম্যাটার এবং ম্যাটরিয়াল আরো স্পষ্টকরে; ম্যাকানিক্যাল কোনো বস্তুর আধ্যাত্মিক জগত থাকে না; এটা এক পার্শ্বিক। ফলে যারা মনে করছে যে শরিয়ত নিছকই বাহ্যিক কিছু বিধানাবলীর সমষ্টি, তারা একভাবে শরিয়তকে "ম্যাকানাইজ" করে ফেলেছে, ইন্টেনশনালী অথবা আন-ইন্টেশনালী। এটাই তাদের অপবিত্র মানসিকতা ও চিন্তা কাঠামো , যাতে, যা কিছু দ্বি-প্বার্শিক, তা তাদের কাছে এক-প্বার্শিক, অর্থাৎ আল্লাহ যেভাবে দৃশ্য ও অদৃশ্যের মাঝে ভারসাম্য তৈরি করেছেন, সেটা তাদের মধ্যে নাই। এই ব্যাপারে আমি কার্টেসিয়ান ফিজিক্সের আলোচনায় বিস্তারিত আলোচনা করেছি। সুতরাং তাদের মাধ্যমে শরিয়তের ম্যাকানাইজেশন শরিয়তের ইলমকে হ্রাস করছে, অর্থাৎ আগে যেখানে ইলম অদৃশ্য জগতের সাথে যুক্ত ছিলো, এখন তা নিছকই মানুষের র্যাশনালিটি ও ইন্ডিভিজিলুয়াটির মধ্যে সীমাবদ্ধ, যেমন আধুনিক শিক্ষা ও ওয়েস্টার্ন ফিলোসফি।

এটাই হচ্ছে ইলমের অপবিত্রকরণ এবং এভাবেই যারা প্রকৃত অর্থে জ্ঞানী ও আলেম তারা আড়াল হয়ে যাচ্ছে এবং মূর্খরা জ্ঞানের এবং শরিয়তের ধারক হওয়ার ভান করছে। যারা প্রকৃত অর্থেই আলেম এবং জ্ঞানী তাদের সংখ্যা কমছে এবং যারা মূর্খ অযোগ্য, তারা প্রকাশ্যে আসছে, মানুষ তাদের অনুসরণ করছে, এটাই ইলম উঠিয়ে নেওয়ার আলামত। আর উপরের বলা পদ্ধতিতেই শুধু ইলম উঠিয়ে নেওয়া হচ্ছে না, বরং আলেমদের মৃত্যুর মাধ্যমে তা আরো তরান্বিত হচ্ছে। প্রতিটা আলেমের মৃত্যুর মাধ্যমে আল্লাহ এমন কিছু ইলম উঠিয়ে নেন, যা অন্য কারো কাছে নেই, আর এখানে নিশ্চিতভাবেই ইঙ্গিত আধ্যাত্মিক জগতের ব্যাপার অথবা এমন কোনো কিছু যা আসলে পবিত্র এবং ইসোটেরিক, কেননা লিখিত কিতাবের অভাব নেই, অভাব হলো সেই লিখিত বক্তব্যের অদৃশ্য দিক বুঝতে পারা। আর আমরা এখন সেটাই দেখছি যে আজকাল মূর্খরা আলেমদের উপর কথা বলে, আরো মানুষ তাদের অনুসরণ করে, যেটা প্রকৃত অর্থে সেন্টিমেন্টাল, নট ইন্টেলেকচুয়াল আর সংকট দিনকে দিন আরো বৃদ্ধি পাচ্ছে। অনলাইনে আজকাল যারা নেতৃত্ব দেওয়ার কথা বলে, তাদের বেশিরভাগই এই রোগে আক্রান্ত আর যারা অনুসরণ করে, তাদের অসুস্থতার কথা তো আর বলার অপেক্ষা রাখে না।

In our previous discussion, we adequately addressed the downward tendency of modern science, which is inherently flawed in its nature. We also described that their ‘reductionist mindset ' originates from Cartesian physics, where René Descartes sought to view everything as measurable, quantitative, and the body as extended in space. We discussed the problem of Cartesian physics adequately in our previous discussion. To understand the problems behind Cartesian physics, our readers should read it again.

Let's begin.

Humans have two sides of themselves, one is appearance, another is disappearance, one is inner, another is outer. These two possibilities we can see in every creation. For instance, Hall and Haven, man and woman, day and night, light and dark and so on. So, it's one of the fundamental natures of the universe to balance the creation; inversely, it's necessary for every being to have the opposite of his own. And that's why humans have two sides to themselves, inner and outer, each of which is interconnected with the others. Inner reflects its outer self and vice versa, and that's why the essence of humans is their inner self. Hence, the esoteric and the exoteric side is fundamentally true, as we Muslims express this, as Al-gaib and Ash-Shuhud (the world of seen and unseen). And the unseen world is unlimited or beyond our knowledge.

Therefore, the human inner self is a gateway of connection to God or with higher beings. It’s essential to note that the human mind is actually another space, where the images and his thoughts are created (in Akbarin sense, this is called Alam-e-mithal) , but this space is not like our physical space; it’s the space that we can’t measure like physical space. Elsewhere, we alluded that the universe and the space are Substance, so there’s another domain, from where this Substance becomes in appearance, and it’s not Essence itself but a manifestation of the Essence.

Now, we should return to human space, ie, the spiritual realm. Modern psychology can't differentiate that the ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ are two different things; it's also notable that they're also unable to talk about the soul, or exactly what the soul is. In Islamic epistemology, the soul is actually the command of God. But when we talk about the spirit, the problem arises here for modern people, and finding the answer to this is too difficult for them. The spirit is actually the unaltered way of thinking, or, the spirit is the divine evidence and guidance of God, it's the light of, Divine guidance that exists in all humans' inner domain, if it was not modified through the modern profane satanic philosophy. Therefore the spirit is essentially the part of the essence, and essence itself belongs to God. Moderns confuse these three realms, i.e, the realm of spirituality, the realm of psyche, and the realm of corporal order, where we exist.

It’s very evident that modern science is confined to this corporal world; all branches of it are knowledge of applications, which is essentially the domain of sense, not applicable to what is a non-sensible or, more accurately, intelligible world. It’s enough to think that if modern men want to create another science or a branch of knowledge, then it will actually be confined to the human sensible world, not with what is non-sensible or beyond the senses of humans. We previously indicated that this way of thinking, that everything is extended in space, which we can measure, or that everything is extended in space; not coming from any transcendent reality is actually the problem of Cartesian physics, i.e., to reduce everything downward instead of upward.

In the universe, what we can see is the domain of the corporal world,‌ that is physical space. For this reason, and that's why, modern science is limited to a sensible world. On the other hand, our concern is the intelligible world, or the world which is beyond the senses of humans and their empirical philosophy, and that is the space of the human psyche. Above, we said that the soul (in Islamic science, Ruh) is actually the Command of God. Therefore, the inner self of humans belongs to the Essence of the universe or that command is the part of reality or the Essence, about which we said it is beyond the imagination.

It’s noteworthy that if modern science is limited to this corporal world, then how can this science advise about a knowledge, which is absolutely not from this world? Because physics is the part of the corporal world that we can see, but the psyche is not part of physics, but ‘Metaphysics’. And here, another modern profane science entered and profanised this knowledge. Sigmund Freud, who is the founder of the modern psychology, resemblance to other modern tendency, to reduce the ‘metaphysics’ into ‘physics’ about which, we said that, it’s actually one of the buffoonery of the moderns, or their ill prepared knowledge, that open the door for the malefic forces from the subtle order to enter the human essence. And those malefic forces, about them modern thinkers consider that they belong to a world beyond Human grasp or they are the supreme being (they belong lower subtle order, but when any spirit want to interact with spiritual order, these forces come to intervene in psychic realm those human spirits, only Muslim Sufies know how to avoid them safely without affected by them) , but instead, they are forces of satan or their descendants, belong to a lower subtle world. Here is a very thing, empty space doesn’t mean that space actually is empty, instead, it’s very possible that what we think is empty, in reality, that is not, but we just can’t see them. And these subtle orders belong to this emptiness, or the dark forces, as moderns are comfortable with ‘dark energy’.

So, psychology is part of metaphysics, not physics. And it's evident that the Western world is currently lacking in its spiritual domain, and if it's so, then how can they instruct about something which they don't possess or even know absolutely nothing about? Wonder is, Western neo-spiritualist also apart from this buffoonery, as René Guénon says:

Neo-spiritualism is also, on the side alluded to above as 'practical', closely in conformity with the 'experimental tendencies' of the modern mentality. In this way, it has gradually come to exert an appreciable influence on science itself, into which it has more or less insinuated itself by means of what is called metapsychics. Doubtless the phenomena considered in 'metapsy- chics' are in themselves just as worthy of study as are those of the corporeal world; but what gives rise to objection is the way in which the study is undertaken, that is, the application to it of the point of view of profane science; physicists (who are so obstinate in sticking to their quantitative methods as to want to try to 'weigh the soul’!) and even psychologists in the 'official' sense of the word, are sure as ill-prepared as possible for a study of this kind, and for that very reason more liable than anyone else to allow themselves to be deluded in every way.

After that, as René Guénon thought upward, he questioned modern psychology, presenting modern psychology’s most concern: what is ‘subconscious’, and never what is ‘superconscious!’ (this resemblance is almost everywhere in modern science, as their interests are what is in dark energy not what is light (we Muslim this as Noor) . Traditionally, darkness refers to the Devil and light to God, and modern people think that sometimes dark forces are more powerful than light! This becomes totally upside down of the reality and presents us how much they dragged themselves down) ! so, this tendency is also in downward direction and never upward direction, and we alluded that, those malefic forces who penetrate through fissures in the psyche of the humans by ill prepared peoples impulsion in the psychic realm (above we indicated that this realm is intermediary, it can be influenced through spiritual world or from lower terrestrial world, and when modern enter here, they immediately affect by subtle forces who intervene them and they actually don’t know how to save himself from those forces) which create this modern so-called psychology or new-spiritualists. If we think of this tendency of modern psychology on ‘subconscious’, then it is actually the opposite of logic. For instance, subconscious means what is below the consciousness, and superconscious (higher intellect, spirit) is what is above the consciousness, so modernists unbalanced this, because their most concern is the lower part, and never the upper. When modern psychologists imply this subconscious term, they actually extend the human psyche to a dark, inferior, and chaotic zone. This downward direction corresponds to infra-human powers, and from this craving, malefic forces penetrate into the Human zone, i.e, the satanic and evil forces.

Modern people consider that lower means “profound”, but why is it not upward and always downward? As René Guénon says, they think unconscious states are deep and “profound”. But from a metaphysical point of view, higher = profound, lower = less profound. So, the subconscious is inferior and less profound, and the superconscious is actually profound. The true profound center of the human being is their spiritual intellect, not the unconscious, and since, modern psychology doesn’t recognize the superconscious, so it cannot reach to the spirituality, cause, it remain foreign to psychology, and that is why, Psychology is limited to sensible world, and never can reach what is non-sensible world i.e., intelligible world. When this modern psychologist sees anything that belongs to the superconscious, they feel anxiety and rigidly try to assimilate those things into the ‘subconscious’.

Another considerable thing is the fact of true symbolism of the dream. The founder of modern psychology Sigmund Freud sees dream rationally, because, dream are symbolic by it’s nature and true symbol is what come from ‘supra-human’ order. A ordinary dream no matter how it looks like symbolic and strange, it’s not real symbolism. And modern psychology reduce the meaning of symbols to humans mantle process, missing their deeper Metaphysical meaning. If symbolism is reduced to Purley human level, then it’s necessarily lost it’s true meaning. Seeing symbols of dream rationally, is another malady of the moderns, because, rationality Itself is the domain of individual, and individual means bound with human, which is actually downward, on the other hand, supra-human is upward, beyond rationality. And we indicated that from metaphysical point of view, lower means less profound, and upper means profound. Lower refers, darkness, chaotic zone, inferior psyche. And Psychologist sees dream come from lower, (about which they think, coming from profound order) And from here, they wrongly interpret those symbols what people sees in their dreams and distorts the true meaning of symbols.

Anyone who wants to practice psychoanalysis as a profession of being first ‘psychoanalyzed’ himself. And the psychologically noteworthy, who undergone this process, he is never again the same as he was before, it always left a mark on him as religious initiation (sufi orders) left, and here is not the question of spiritual domain, but the development of inferior psychic domain. What the Psychoanalytic do with the patient, is more closer to what is actually the magic or sorcery, as René Guénon indicated, because, they uses forces to change the human mindset, apart from this work, they’ve nothing truly how the cosmic dimension work without affecting by malefic forces from subtle lower domain. Hence, as we said above, they’ve reduced psychology to rationality and rationality itself is the lower level, cause what is in here, is purely individual and level of human and never ‘supra-human’. Therefore, their psychological analysis, by its very nature, is profane and moving to downward direction, and the downward direction means chaotic zone, more close to evil forces.

A question arises here in psychology about transmission René Guénon asked modern psychologist:

there remains yet another very obscure point concerning the actual origin of the transmission: it is obviously impossible to give to anyone else what one does not possess oneself, and moreover the invention of psychoanalysis is quite recent; so from what source did the first psychoanalysts obtain the 'powers' that they communicate to their disciples, and by whom were they themselves 'psychoanalyzed' in the first place.

If one asks any modern psychoanalyst this question, it's very doubtful to obtain a satisfactory answer from them, but unquestionably, this type of psychic transmission left behind a sinister mark of the Satanic or evil forces in the psyche of the patient, and that's why René Guénon sees this psychoanalysis a resemblance of sacrament of the devil.

We should return now to what Modern men call 'scientific' or scientistic view. As we mentioned in our previous post, modern science is inherently profane by its nature, and this tendency to reduce everything to a quantitative domain originates from Cartesian physics or Cartesian dualism. And the result of this tendency is that people become accustomed to considering that everything which cannot be put into figures, or which we can't think or imagine about, its existence is questionable to them. Therefore, this science is confined to a sensible world, or the domain, in which they can think about it. So, the tendency of modern physics is to reduce everything to the human imaginable domain. And that's why this science is seen as a subversion of traditional science or the 'residue' of traditional conceptions. René Guénon explained this tendency very well:

Nowadays people commonly think and say that anything that cannot be put into figures, or in other words, cannot be expressed in purely quantitative terms. In descriptive terms, for that reason, it lacks any 'scientific' value. This assumption holds sway not only in 'physics' in the ordinary sense of the word, but in all the sciences officially recognized as such these days. As we have seen, even the psychological domain is not beyond its reach.”

A question can arise here, why are people inclined to assume that nature is very 'simple' and the universal orders are easy to understand? It's the same tendency towards reducing everything to their lowest understanding, which is actually beyond their knowledge or imagination. Every miracles or the devin manifestation or the principal, which reflects the Essence in manifested world through from, about which they cannot assume or beyond their grasp, they want to interpret those things to their own way of understanding, therefore, their knowledge which is, actually innumerable information of some divagetive nature of the universe without harmonical balance with the universe or to eachother, actually lead them to another fragmented information. So, every 'fragmented information' in modern physics leads them to another fragmentation, and so on, there's no end.

For example, René Descartes sees time as linear, like the time is flowing from past to future, this was the Cartesian conception of time. On the other hand, Einstein sees time as one fabric, 'spacetime', where mass and energy coexist and curve the spacetime, which we call gravity through Newton. But new research has raised to us, they claim that time is neither flowing nor is it like one fabric of mass and energy which curves the spacetime, and after that, gravity becomes apparent, but time folds onto itself in a new quantum theory, in this theory, our present actions might reshape our past. So, their countless fragmented theory are contradictory with each other over time, there is no conclusion about anything, and also there is no end, where actually no certainty is available. So their entire perception about time and space and any other modern 'profane science', is nothing but their limited fallacies about existence and fragmented facts without certainty, therefore, there's no truth, only some matters, which are quantitative, not qualitative, meaning, they are death conceptions without any 'spirits'.

Before going to discuss the 'simplicity' of moderns, we need to know what the time really is in Génonian philosophy or other traditional conceptions; if we associate time and space with a higher principle. The time is the condition of manifestation,( it’s not an independent creation, but a necessary condition of the creation) it’s not eternal, but all time are exist in eternal reality, thus, past presents and and future are coexist, but we see them are successively, meaning, every movement of us is combined with one space and time, but we see them successively, therefore, every moment is creating the new becoming, what is future, is actually the new manifestation of divine creation. What the modern conception of time is saying is that time folds onto itself; we can interpret it in a way that time doesn’t change, but what changes is the mode of our soul’s perception. So, each of these modern profane theories is contradictory to the others, so there is no certainty, and uncertainty means there is no truth. On the other hand, what we just alluded to here about the traditional or the metaphysical harmony with the time, is actually equilibrium with the Essence and its manifestation, cause our conception of time is connected with the principle; the physical world is the manifestation of the unseen world or the higher principle.

Thus, all of the concepts, that’s beyond our grasp or what is actually beyond the human intelligence, modern profane science rigidly want to explain those things with their own mental limitations, without any metaphysical principles, and most of them, want to achieve those things through the satanic forces, what they call them in their scientific milieu "mystic" or "mysticism", or 'angel’, but they’re just some evil forces, which are also belong to the physical or senseble world, (and the modern quantitative science are the product of them) where, no divine evidence or illumination available, just innumerable information of facts and matters without harmonical balance to eachother. The angelic conception of them indeed is beyond Human imagination, it is a part of Essence, not the substance.

The tendency of putting everything or interpreting everything as 'simple' by modern men is to search for the unity in multiplicity, as we indicated in our previous post. They want to unify everything to achieve unity. On the other hand, the universe is not uniform; instead, it is composed of different modifications and different qualities. So, unity of multiplicity is possible if they're different units by their virtue and actions, on the other hand, unifying will be possible if they're units without any qualitative distinctions. So, when modern men want to achieve unity through unifying everything thinking that the atoms are indivisible, then this is another fallacy of horizontal and limited conception, cause, atom is still a part of the physical world, but, in the conception of Cartesian physics, everything is extended in space, so what is extended in space, is divisible by definition. Therefore, the thinking of atoms is the main part of the universal existence since they (in their limited contradictory thinking) are indivisible, their filthy thinking becomes more profound without any realization that the atoms are also a part of the physical world. If something has extension in space, then it has a body, and a body by definition, can always be divided.

This "simplification" originates from Certsian dualism, leading from 'spirit' to 'matter’, a descending form opposite to the centre. And these people tend to make the 'spirit' also a conception of matter. For example, modern profane science nowadays makes the thoughts as 'waves' or energy or vibration flowing in the space, they can’t even imagine that the thoughts can have a non-material or supra-sensible influence. They dragged down the thoughts in their limited conception and made it 'physical energy' or waves! And this example proves to us, the entire Cartesian physics, which is the foundation of modern science, is mechanical science, and very, very limited to the sensible world. It’s descending down with ever more speed over time. And they call this ‘progress’.

And that’s why we can see that protestantism in the Christian world is a product of modern thinking, a revolution against every traditional norm and value. In the Muslim world, this so-called anti-traditionalism has affected Islam very much. In Saudi Arabia, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab emerged with his own interpretation of monotheism, calling all Muslims except his own people polytheists. When their Kharijites became clear to all Muslims, the modernization of Arabia was carried out through Rashid Rida. What used to be Wahhabism, after his influence, has now become a liberal version called ‘Salafism’. And Rashid Rida was a 'modern Muslim’, he emphasized modern logic and often he criticized the esoteric (Sufism or Tasawwuf) world of Islam. And his descendants are rejected spiritual dimension of Islam. We can’t consider them as Hanbali, because the Hanbali’s theological interpretation is literalistic, but they also believe in Karamat, and the esoteric side of Islam. But the descendants of MIAW and his narrow and selective interpretation of Tawheed and the work of Ibn Taymiyyah made them a deviant sect in Islam. What’s the common thing in all of them? Is the mental laziness to understand what is complex, that’s why protestantism and Wahhabi-Salafism demand the self-reading (and rejecting the hierarchy of the religious domain by I’llm and knowledge) of Divine guidance, the Bible, and the Qur’an, they want to interpret them in their own way of thinking without any qualifications.

Earlier, we indicated that Cartesian physics led humans from "spirit' towards 'matter’. Etymologically, the meaning of spirit is soul or life, a non-physical being. Since spirit indicated to us to think about living things, we also see the space as a living thing, but it’s not living what we perceive in our ordinary sense, such as talking, eating, breathing, etc. It’s living by virtue and is mostly different from us. For instance, a tree is living inert, but different from us completely. So, understanding the spirit without any qualitative aspect of it is very complex since their presuppositions convinced them that nothing exists that we cannot put into figures or counts, as we indicated above.

All of our present discussion is enough to understand why this modern science is materialistic (and how it’s materialistic), because in this profane science, there is no Qualitative aspect, only Quantitative. The lowest level of Human existence becomes an extremely high level of their foundation of knowledge. And that’s why they are trapped in a labyrinth that has no end.

A tendency in the modern world is to reduce everything to its quantitative aspects, which means they see everything as equal, promoting the sameness and identity of everything. That’s why another fatal thing in this Modern World is ‘equality‘. But in this universe, is everything and every person really the same? The answer is no. Everything and everyone has its qualitative distinctions from others, but when we conceive that everything and everyone is the same, then, we actually see them as nothing but solely a machine; this view is pure mechanical. Machine and mechanical products are the same, but the universe and Human beings are qualitative, not quantitative; although they’ve some quantitative properties.

Cartesian metaphysics, wherein René Descartes conceived space as empty and homogeneous—everything possessing only extension according to its measurable magnitude, which geometry seeks to determine. In this conception, space is of the same nature in every direction, devoid of qualitative differentiation, and therefore entirely quantitative. From this metaphysical reduction, the modern conception arose: to perceive things merely as bodies occupying extension in space.

Yet, in reality, space is not empty; it represents the quantitative aspect of quality, that is, the form through which Essence manifests. When space is regarded as empty and uniform, and all things within it as purely quantitative, therefore modern man is compelled to see even the human being as a homogeneous entity, identical in every respect. From this metaphysical presupposition emerges the modern notion of “equality”—the belief that all humans are the same, reflecting the uniform and undifferentiated nature of the Cartesian notion of space itself.

From this point of view, we are actually discussing René Guenon’s famous Criticism of Uniformity. Modernists are trying to uniform everything, and that thing is actually the same from their qualifications of existence, and hence, they think everyone should be united and would be treated as the same. Be careful, Unity and Uniformity are not actually the same. Unity is: when the universe and its elements come from one principle, which is higher than everything; elsewhere we alluded to this as Essence. Unity refers to an inner oneness that allows for diversity within harmony. For example, a human body has many organs—each different, yet all work together in one life and purpose. That’s unity. This is also sufficient for the universal order; each of the things has its different act that is suitable and according to the purpose of its own existence itself, and connected with the universal order in harmony.

On the other hand, Uniformity is a modern philosophy, thinking everything as the same kind, identical, and leveling all distinctions. It arises when difference and hierarchy are denied, leading to a flat, mechanical equality. René Guénon exemplifies this more accurately:

René Guénon wrote another chapter on the disposal of this discussion, titled Ancient Craft and Modern Industry. Here he says that every human being has his different functions for the purpose of his existence, which are connected to the universal cosmos; he can't act properly if he doesn't act according to what he was made for. This doctrine is similar to the Hindu cast system, where every human section has its different functions to work with and he must fulfil his functions accurately. (But our thinking is different from what Hindu doctrine teaches, and our readers must know that, René Guénon insisted on Hindu doctrine to explain to people how hierarchy exists in different cultures and on the universal level.)

And this point, we come exactly to the same place where above we discussed the Unity and Uniformity. When modern mentality promotes that every person is equal, at the same time, they’re denying the hierarchy of human existence, which is connected to universal functions to act properly. We said above that everything is different from one another, things are unique not uniform. Units are functioning for the different tasks as they’re made for, but at the same time, their goal is one. On the other hand, Uniform is a different thing; it’s the same for each other. They’ve quality, but they can’t fulfill the different tasks of the Universe.

And from this point of view, when modern man promotes the 'equality', they are actually denying the universal truth and seeing humans as machines. Because equality wants the same treatment, when the hierarchy demands justice based on what he actually is, cause everyone is different from others. Guénon says:

This would be sufficient to understand the Modern industrial infections that dragged humans to the lowest level as much as possible. Another thing we should keep in mind, which is a complementary part of this discussion, is, the Twofold significance of Anonymity, (Two-fold anonymity (or double anonymity) refers to a system or situation where both parties in an interaction are anonymous to each other — that is, neither side knows the identity of the other. It’s the part of René Guénon’s Metaphysical discussion)) and it’s a complementary part of Ancient Craft and Modern Industry, where René Guénon says that, in ancient times, the craftman remained anonymous because Craft itself was a devotion to God. René Guenon exemplifies this through the medieval cathedral (including Muslim architecture); this art was actually a manifestation of an artisan’s superiority over an ordinary person. That’s why there is an apparent differentiation between modern art and traditional art that we see. Modern arts and architecture reflect nothing but merely an infrastructure, but in medieval and traditional times, art was a part of intuition. We only know about all that architecture when and under whose rule it was built, but not who built it. Cause they’ve wanted to remain anonymous, they actually transcended the ordinary stage and became super-human (it also applies to the Sufis), but in modern times, people are anonymous. Their industrial products reflect nothing of who made them, because they are part of the machine as we indicated above. But in medieval times, art and artisans were interconnected. When the artisans overcame the rudimentary stage of intuition and connected themselves to the principle, then their art became a masterpiece.

In this chapter (The Dark Age, first chapter of The Crisis of The Modern World), Guenon discussed how the traditional world became the "Modern" World. If we say specifically, it is the time when humans leave their higher stage to conquer the lowest stage of the world.

The materialisation we see in this present age is a pure decline of their Intellectual intuition. When they say, that, this Modern civilisation is the peak of Human intellectuality, it is nothing other than their inability to reach true science. If we go back in the history of previous civilisations, then we can reach the sixteenth century. Before this age, we had no information about the history of anything.

There is a thing that arises for us about the 'progres’, in the modern sense, it’s nothing but continuing on an endless journey. Why does this so-called Modern World talk about an endless journey? Because when Humans lost their purpose of existence and higher order of knowledge — which gives the meaning of their existence– it’s become necessary to get the meaning of their existence, and thus, they give their meaning of existence for an endless journey through the notion of 'progress’, which has no end. A technological zombie.

Now, we should talk about the word philosophy, which is dominant in this present age and in the sense of our intellectuals and, also the fundamental problem of this present age; mostly in Western thinking. The word philosophy is from the French, etymologically meaning of this is love of wisdom. Pythagoras was the first person to use this word in his pursuit of knowledge. And it was the time before and remote from the Christian age. After that, Hellenic civilisation is the second stage of the Modern world and less remote from the Christian age, where people use it for practical and applicable knowledge. But the word philosophy, in the very remote from the Christian age, combines the higher and lower orders of science, or the preparatory stage of seeking knowledge. But now, by this word we think merely a knowledge of empirical science, and if anyone of this present age uses this as a Metaphysical point of view, then it’s nothing but a pseudo-metaphysics.

Guenon says more explicitly about this word philosophy:

"It denotes therefore a preliminary and preparatory stage, a step as it were in the direction of wisdom or a degree corresponding to a lower level of wisdom: the perversion that ensued consisted in taking this transitional stage, for an end in itself and in seeking to substitute 'philosophy' for wis- dom, a process which implied forgetting or ignoring the true hature of the latter."

Here is the thing, that, in the preliminary stage of Humans' seeking knowledge, this word refers to higher and lower orders of wisdom or the preparatory stage of seeking knowledge, practical and Metaphysical. But when Christianity became a given civilisation, if we look at a less remote period from Christianity, in Hellenic civilisation, then we find that this word was used for higher and lower orders of wisdom and knowledge, but in a limited sense. (Therefore, in the time of the Renaissance, when science lost its higher order, it became Profane Science, which we have discussed previously.) Their focus was mostly on empirical knowledge. In Islamic science, it’s called Hikmah, it is the combination of higher and lower degrees of knowledge, past, present and future and also includes divine guidance. Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi Rh addressed Hikmah in more detail in his book Answers to Modernism. We should look here.

It's beyond question why the thinking of the West became gradually astray and deviant in terms of knowledge and wisdom. In the first place, René Guenon says in this essay about "Cosmic cycle" or a "Cosmic wheel", that is moving from the upward to the downward. And if we think linearly, then it must move gradually from the centre, or, from where it started moving. But, in Islamic Metaphysics, it is another thing and a less complicated comparison to others (and completely different from what we see in the Hindu Doctrine); we need to have a broad discussion on it to discuss. We will discuss Islamic Metaphysics in another chapter, insha'Allah, but I need time to discuss.

But the wonder is, most of us know what Islamic Metaphysics is, but didn’t identify specifically, that, this is the Islamic Metaphysics and Cosmic order. And here arises another thing that we have discussed in our previous discussions, that Westerners divided Science and knowledge unnecessarily, which were in a unit form before this Modernity. And that’s why, the Renaissance is not the awakening, but the death of Human Fitrah and many things.

But the caution is, all of the things we are discussing here—and we will continue–are from the philosophical aspect, and keep in mind, after Islam and Shari'ah, there is nothing we should be obsessed with. And the false and narrow thinking of the Modernist mind is that it seeks the analogy of one nation's belief to another nation. And we see this also in René Guenon's work, or more specifically, it's the fundamental form of Guenon's thoughts. We have already discussed it.