Muslim Unity: An analysis of its recent past and its probable future

Muslims are overwhelmingly concerned about the disunity among themselves. This has been a perplexing phenomenon as to why there has been no such "Unity" reached when everyone seems to be in favor of one.

Perhaps this comes from our lack of understanding of the concepts and terminologies that we use. What do we mean by "Unity"? What are the characteristics of a "United" Ummah? So that we know we are "United" when it exhibits such.

The venerable scholar Dr. Umar Farooq abd-Allah aptly said, "Unity" is not "Uniformity". So according to that paradigm people can still be "United" in their "Diversity".

But then one wonders where do they "Unite" and where do they "Diverge"? Evidentially Muslims are united in their testimony, The Shahāda. But they diverge in its implications. The problem does not end there though. In case there is an agreement of the implications, there is a contest among its implementations.

That's why all the mouthful labels that the various Muslim factions have got, the Jihadists, the Modernists, the Islamists, the Traditionalists, all are mostly Sunnites. 

So they are already united in the implications of their testimony.

As for their difference in its implementations, it is no different than any other group of people. And people differ in things that they don't know about. No one has any argument that the Sun rises in the East. People might have difference as to the how. Because the how is not as explicit as the what is.

If that is the case then its judicious not to lean towards any particular group and their methodologies as Muslim commoners. But to be as accommodating as one possibly can. And also to observe the nature of the inner struggle. For struggle defines competence. Its useful when the rules of engagement are mutually understood by all parties.

Multifaceted struggle has also the advantage of overwhelming the Enemy. If one only fights in a single front, politically, militarily, or otherwise,  there is a single point of failure. A joint struggle in all fronts has the advantage that engagement in one front gives the other to rejuvenate.

So in a sense the Ummah needs to move like a river, like Maulāna Mawdūdi ﵀ said. When it finds a hindrance in one direction it re-flows in another. The point is to keep the flow, to keep going.

I have been thinking about this for a long time and I believe I have more things to tell. But today it all resurged after watching the interview of Shaykh Asrar Rashid by 5PillarsUK. Now I'm not familiar with the mentioned scholar and I must admit I only had a negative impression of him as a polemicist and specially lost any interest after watching his poison taking clip.

Dr. Umar Farooq abd-Allah advised never to write off anyone. How true! I'm very glad that 5Pillars not only hosted him but also brought forth the burning questions at hand. I have watched only the latter half of the interview, i.e., from "why does he single out the Salafis for criticism and refutation?" onwards, as those are the questions that interest me.

I was particularly interested in the controversies regarding Shaykh Buti ﵀. No matter how much I wanted I could not resolve how could an accomplished scholar offer funeral prayer over a Zindīq to put mildly. How could a judicious, upright person ally with a clear ṭawāġīt against an oppressed people?

And these questions resonate personally well with me because we have similar experiences here in Bangladesh except the particular individuals are "scholar" in degree or name only and have no recognition of their faculty. Needless to mention their lack of morals and piety, as evident in common Muslims' low opinion of them.

These "scholars" in Bangladesh offered funeral prayer over an apostate, a Murtadd, in clear day light leading mostly the secular, Marxist, leftist, Godless and the rest-the misguided, ill informed commoners. The Muslim outrage was evident after the apostasy was revealed to public by The Daily Amardesh. Earlier during the funeral speech that apostate was reportedly declared as a Martyr, a Shaheed.

The investigative report laid bare the blasphemous writings of the mentioned Murtadd and it lead to nationwide outrage. The most overt protests came from non other than the Hefazat-e-Islam, the Qawmi block, believed to be a bastion for the secular political force, however incomprehensible that might be, and very antithetic to the Jamaat-e-Islami, the largest Islamist party.

Mufti Shafi, the so called "spiritual leader" of Hefazat-e-Islam, organized a protest with his Qawmi students whose age denomination ranged from kids to adolescents. A massacre ensued, much like that of Tahrir Square, with having the "spiritual leader" fleeing in favor of the government, leaving behind kids that he brought. I'll never forgive him and his masters, the main perpetrators.

All the while, the secular west and specially US of America kept regurgitating their deceitfully crafted statements, much like what they said after Tahrir Square massacre. The same US of America who has recently being on the move again for protecting "human rights" and championing the "democratic process" in Bangladesh. Not in Pakistan. In Bangladesh.

Now I never for a moment had difficulty comprehending these Bangladeshi "scholars", "muftis", "mawlanā", who have been overtly or covertly supporting the ṭawāġīt. These are either simpletons or corrupt. Some of them are taken advantage of, the rest are sold out for worldly purposes. Some are fool, the rest are Munāfiq. To think of them as scholars, as Ulemā, is an affront to genuine scholarship. They may paraphrase knowledge but they are not knowledgeable.

In that context, the matter of Al-Buti always chased me. His undeniable scholarship and piety against his actions are hard to reconcile. This interview has helped alleviate some of the concerns.

But my most important takeaway is not to write off anyone. I am impressed by the knowledge of Shaykh Asrar. People have tendencies and personal idiosyncrasies. That's a given. And I have already mastered how to navigate that. That's why I try to find whatever valuable lessons from the vast and varied array of contemporary Islamic scholarships. From the likes of Imran Nazar Hosein, to Nazim Al-Haqqani. From Islamic Banking thought leaders to their antagonist Umar Vadillo. From Najdis to Sufis.

So it drew my particular attention and confirmed my, not very critically but rather subconsciously assumed, rule of firmly taking from the consensus among the Ulemā and leaving the differing matters to them. Although, I am aware of the danger of always following "the majority".

There is also the question of certain practices of the Sufis that was hard to fathom. It still is but at least it is more contextualized.

Having said the above, I personally prefer the work of the Islamists because in my understanding they are the only group able to hold a somewhat acceptable balance in each directions and accommodate between factions and methodologies. Their most important work is to bridge the gap between the Ahl al-ḥall wa-l-ʿaqd and the common Muslims. And to create a consensus among the common Muslims so that their ranks and files can be protected during trialing times.

Despite his naivety, and of Imran Khan's, the late President Mursi, in my understanding, rightly geared towards forming a greater Muslim unity. After election he paid his first foreign visit to KSA and the then Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, paid a visit to Egypt for the first time. He proved that a unity is practicable even if there are theological differences. After all isn't it the case that even enemies form allies to fight off a greater common enemy?

This literally shook the ṭawāġīt by the core. And this why I would like to keep my bet on the Islamists and I also suspect that the leaders of the ṭawāġīt have understood it very well. That the Islamists are a forthcoming reality. They can't be repelled. But with correct policies and schemes they can be contained. What cannot be done with poison, can be done with honey.

And if the Islamists succeed, it'll have an impact like that of the Rashidun Caliphate. As predicted by Maulāna Mawdūdi ﵀ sahib. For ever since the Rashidun Caliphate, no single polity lead the Muslim Ummah. Thus a lot efforts were spent in vain among competitive forces. So if a global consensus for a singular political entity were to rise it will not only just unify the Muslims but also portend the coming of the Mahdi, as too predicted by Mawdūdi.

If not then we'll be back to the previous ages of endless infighting among the "army of Khorasan" to the benefit of the ṭawāġīt.