By Abu Muhammad
During a visit to the local historical attractions, while a student in Amman (Jordan), a classmate made a remark which started an enthralling discussion on religion, culture and revival.
While admiring the remains and colosseums the Romans left behind, which still dominate parts of the Jordanian capital, my classmate commented, ‘when the Islamic revival or the Islamic state is established, these and other similar buildings should be destroyed – firstly because they remind us of the tragic history and the suffering of the Muslims, and secondly, these are un-Islamic and therefore, they ought be removed from Muslim lands’.
This depicts the sentiment of many people who, in the opinion of some writers, view the world and its development through a one-dimensional perspective. The much celebrated Muslim thinker of the 20th century, Syed Qutb, according to them, is one such intellectual among others who reduced the problems facing the Muslim society to a simplistic struggle between good and evil, and faith and infidelity.
In the mindset of Syed Qutb, the problems, intellectual and social, faced by Muslim society became solely moral problems, and that when a considerable number of people adopt the Islamic world view - it is only then that the social and spiritual decadence it is facing may be uprooted. A society, according to him, which is advanced in science and technology but immoral is backward, while a society which is morally upright but not developed ’techonologically’ is actually advanced. Therefore, anything that has a semblance of the Jahili culture (pre-Islamic/ignorance) should not in any way mix with the pure and unadulterated teachings of the Qur’an.
In his book Milestones, Qutb noted that the generation of the companions was a unique era that would never be repeated in history and that all that proceeded before them was Jahili and thus sheer evil. It should be uprooted and forgotten from our memories. With regards to the era of the companions – their rank, praise, sacrifice and supremacy, this is of course correct. It is however wrong to suggest that everything that has preceded this unique Qur’anic generation is Jahili and therefore evil.
Despite this, writers who characterise Qutb as being the father of radicalism and extremism in the 20th century are also wrong. Qutb’s psychological state and particular circumstances may have contributed to the way he conveyed his message, as a consequence people have misunderstood the real Qutb and/or misrepresented his views. Nevertheless, analysing his overall writings and his activism does demonstrate a more comprehensive character.
Returning to the issue of whether all that preceded the era of the companions were Jahili and should be buried and forgotten. This attitude is mainly predicated upon a literal reading of history and the Qur’anic text and the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (hadith). The Qur’an itself narrates the stories (Qasas) of the people of the past not to entertain but as Ibrah, a historical lesson to be discerned. The Qur’an connects achievements of previous nations to the present, and brings it to the reality of a given society to demonstrate the historicity of religion and the Tawhid of God.
Syed Qutb and others may have been dismissive of the pre-Islamic era and the achievements of previous nations by some traditions (hadith) which states that Islam effaces everything that came before. However, this line of thinking is wrong in not differentiating between what Islam considers evil (polytheism) and cultural norms, technologies and literature. The latter, of course are areas in which Muslims have benefited from in the past. That is why we see many Muslims historians and scholars such as Ibn Kathir, Ibn Athir, Al-Tabari and others start their writings with the story of creation and the creation of man on Earth.
It cannot therefore be said that the Qur’an does not mix with earlier cultures and civilisations, and that as Muslims we are not permitted to mix with and learn from other cultures and civilisations. Mixing and learning from other cultures is the Sunnah of the successions of civilisations.
Many Qur’anic exegetes (Mufassiroon) have noted that when one is contemplating an indepth study of the Qur’an, one must absorb himself in the ancient and modern works and sift out the good from the bad as the Qur’an itself has done. Syed Abul Ala Mawdudi writes, ‘Anyone wishing to study in depth the Qur’anic view-point on any particular problem of life should, first of all, study all the significant strands of human thought concerning that problem. Ancient and modern works on the subject should be studied. Unresolved problems where human thinking seems to have gotten stuck should be noted. The Qur’an should then be studied with these unresolved problems in mind, with a view to finding out what solutions the Qur’an has to offer.’ (Towards Understanding the Qur’an vol 1, p24).
Similarly, it is conceivable that the minds of the companions were not devoid of past or if you may Jahili experiences, considering that most of them embraced Islam while their minds and intellects were fully mature. Some of them even came to the Prophet asking if their previous good deeds will benefit them in Islam:
Abu Shihab relates that he was told by ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr that Hakim ibn Hizam told him that he had asked the Prophet: “In the time of Jahiliyyah, I used to practice some religious acts like alms-giving, free slaves from bondage and helping relatives. Do these acts carry a reward?” The Prophet replied: “You have embraced Islam following your good deeds.” (Muslim). In another narration it is reported that Ibn Hazim said, “I swear that I will do in Islam everything I did in Jahiliyyah”. (Muslim).
There is enormous disagreement amongst scholars regarding the aforementioned statement of the Prophet. Some hold the view that people who embrace Islam, they will not be rewarded for their good deeds they did in the past. Others say that unbelievers who embraced Islam and die as Muslims will be rewarded for their deeds done before entering Islam. Whichever opinion is correct, it does not negate the validity of benefiting from the previous good deeds and institutions, as long as they are not related pagan practices.
Mixing and benefiting from other cultures and nations is not only inevitable but it is encouraged in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, ‘wisdom is the lost property of the believer, wherever he finds it he is most deserving of it’. Any norm or institution established by other nations and cultures which are beneficial for the Muslim community may be employed to enhance the quality of life of the individual and the Muslim nation (Ummah).
I think anyone who talks about Sayyid Qutb should first read Abdul Fattah Al-Khalidi’s biography of him.
assalaamu ‘alaikum
I find that there are major flaws in the author’s article and I am surprised that the author has even read the book that he makes reference to. I will focus on one point for now, that is “… a society which is morally upright but not developed ’techonologically’ is actually advanced. Therefore, anything that has a semblance of the Jahili culture (pre-Islamic/ignorance) should not in any way mix with the pure and unadulterated teachings of the Qur’an.” Abu Muhammad.
I quote from the VERY FIRST PAGE of the much disputed/acclaimed book that supposedly gave ‘birth to extremism’ – Milestones. Syed Qutb rha says…
“At this crucial and bewildering juncture, the turn of Islam and the Muslim community has arrived -the turn of Islam, which DOES NOT prohibit material inventions. Indeed, it counts it as an obligation on man from the very beginning of time,…”
“But this DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD NEGLECT MATERIAL PROGRESS. We should also give our full attention and effort in this direction, not because at this stage it is an essential requirement for attaining the leadership of mankind, but because it is an essential condition for our very existence; and Islam itself,… MAKES MATERIAL PROGRESS OBLIGATORY FOR US.”
Most importantly, Qutb summarises the correct balance between morality and material progress in this paragraph, at the end of the introduction to his book. I am amazed that Abu Muhammad has missed this crucial paragraph.
“To attain the leadership of mankind, we must have something to offer besides material progress, and this other quality can only be a faith and a way of life which on the one hand conserves the benefits of modern science and technology, and on the other fulfills the basic human needs on the same level of excellence as technology has fulfilled them in the sphere of material comfort. And then this faith and way of life must take concrete form in a human society – in other words, In a Muslim society.”
Secondly, I raise a classically sensitive issue on this blog (please do not get sidetracked by this one point but also respond to the above point as well).
If Syed Qutb was one of the most notable later figures of the Muslim Brotherhood/Islamic movement (alongside the names such as Mawdudi and Banna rha), then does the Islamic Forum Europe (an organisation that champions harakah islaamiyyah in the west) take issue with this individual? If so, what are they? Why? Who else in the history of MB/IM does IFE take issue with? Rather, does IFE consider Qutb to be Islamic movement at all?
I believe that the author has once again created a non-issue and fallen into yet another one of the traps of the unbelievers. That is that a false ‘boogeyman’ as it were, is the problem of the muslims i.e Syed Qutb. Isn’t the west doing enough to villify/demonise respected and accepted figures of the Islamic Movement? They and the so called ‘moderates’/'progressives’ would have us believe that muslims religiously feel that their community mustn’t ‘mix and benefit from other cultures’. All of this is to make the muslims look and feel guilty, be preoccupied with non issues and feel inferior to the unbelievers.
Lastly, I feel that there is a huge problem of brothers and sisters in a) failing to contextualise their current situation and b) failing to be proportionate in response to this.
e.g. we constantly talk about minority individuals that may insist on not mixing or even speaking the language of other cultures when in actual fact, the REALITY is that the majority of our Muslims are mixing SO much with other cultures unregulated that they do not derive ANY benefit from those cultures but are seriously harmed by it. No list of examples required here.
So why do we respond to this context in a disproportionate way? Making the reality appear as though the entire Muslim community fails to integrate or mix with wider society?
I rest my three part interrogative here.
ma’ssalaamah
Ikram – Please share his work if you have it online?
Izzudden – please read the article carfeuly.
Thank you
Salam,
I have read the article carefully and then some! The main point made by Izzudden, that he (Qutb) was for both Material progress as well as Spiritual (moral) alignment with what Allah had revealed is the true nature of his (Qutb’s) writings, specifically Milestones.
This point is not clear from Abu Muhammad’s article and Izzudden’s quote of the writer is ample proof.
As for Izzudden’s questioning of IFE and if it believes Qutb to be Movvement or not etc…I find that rather bizzare?!
I am glad that Izzud deen has raised the very same concerns which were on my mind. I also didn’t understand how a discussion on ancient sites in Jordan between the author and his colleague suddenly diverted to Sayyid Qutb and his so-called controversial view on the subject (which has been clarified as a misinformation).
And nor do I think that this issue of Muslims rejecting everything from other cultures is such a huge one that it warrants a guest contributor blog post. As said above, Muslims have in fact engrossed themselves in the material world and adopted the languages, the lifestyle, the food, the hobbies, etc. of other cultures, of which nothing is wrong, except when those cultres and lifestyles conflict with Islamic teachings (e.g. music/pop/celebrity culture, discarding/wearing down of the hijab, extra-marital relationships/free-mixing, etc.) It is also wrong when the scales tip towards the ‘material progress’ while the religious/spitiual/ilmi progress is so far behind and is in danger. How many doctors, surgeosn, university students, teachers, etc. has this community produced? Let us then compare to the amount of da’wah workers (real ones, not those who like slogans), students of knowledge, scholars, and in general, upright, shining, Muslim individuals?
Without discrediting either material or Islamic progress, it is only correct to say that given the situation is quite heavily tipped towards one side, it is unwise to be causing a fuss about Muslims falling behind materially or not apprecitating material achievements and progress…
I mean really, how much of an issue in our community is the ‘dismissing of past achievements’ to create a hoo-haa about it on the blog? And then to drag in Syed Qutb as one of the justifications for the opposing view?
It would therefore help for the author, in the light of the points raised especially about S Qutb (r) by Izzud Deen, to summarise and clarify again the main argument and cause of his blog post.
And I hope that these comments will not be read as malicious towards the author, may Allah reward him…
“e.g. we constantly talk about minority individuals that may insist on not mixing or even speaking the language of other cultures when in actual fact, the REALITY is that the majority of our Muslims are mixing SO much with other cultures unregulated that they do not derive ANY benefit from those cultures but are seriously harmed by it. No list of examples required here.
So why do we respond to this context in a disproportionate way? Making the reality appear as though the entire Muslim community fails to integrate or mix with wider society?”
Subhanallah so true!!
Br Abu Muhammad, it is unwise to have begun another blog post controversy while you have not even attempted to deal with this one. Merely saying “please read carefully” is an insult to the readers and an assumption of self-righteousness on your behalf to conclude that all those opposing your post are not bothering to read carefully. Perhaps it is you who has overlooked a fault or missed a clarification on your behalf?
But to make it crystal clear to you on one of the arguments against what you have written – which is in fact repeating a previous case from above – you said Syed Qutb’s view was:
“… a society which is morally upright but not developed ’techonologically’ is actually advanced. Therefore, anything that has a semblance of the Jahili culture (pre-Islamic/ignorance) should not in any way mix with the pure and unadulterated teachings of the Qur’an.”
and that is a problem amongst our community in which people take this so called mistaken view of Syed Qutb to justify their wrong views.
Whereas Syed Qutb really said:
““At this crucial and bewildering juncture, the turn of Islam and the Muslim community has arrived -the turn of Islam, which DOES NOT prohibit material inventions. Indeed, it counts it as an obligation on man from the very beginning of time,…”
and
“But this DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD NEGLECT MATERIAL PROGRESS. We should also give our full attention and effort in this direction, not because at this stage it is an essential requirement for attaining the leadership of mankind, but because it is an essential condition for our very existence; and Islam itself,… MAKES MATERIAL PROGRESS OBLIGATORY FOR US.”
and
““To attain the leadership of mankind, we must have something to offer besides material progress, and this other quality can only be a faith and a way of life which on the one hand conserves the benefits of modern science and technology, and on the other fulfills the basic human needs on the same level of excellence as technology has fulfilled them in the sphere of material comfort. And then this faith and way of life must take concrete form in a human society – in other words, In a Muslim society.”
Clearly showing that your initial claim regarding Syed Qutb does not stand. Your thoughts on this would be welcome; perhaps I am missing something else (and no, I have read the post carefully), or perhaps it was an honest mistake from yourself, and we’re all humans…
Regardless, speaking of others is an amanah. It is a grave thing to shed an ink of false impressions – knowingly or unknowingly – on a man who was martyred for Allah, who spent many years in prison, who dedicated his life to raise the kalimah of Allah…
Brother Zafar – I apologise for not being clear. My intention of citing that part was to highlight that there are some writers who believe that Syed Qutb held that position, I do not necessarily agree with it but my main intention of the article was to show how we can benefit from earlier generations and from other cultures and nations and that this does not go against the understanding of the history of religion and monotheism from an Islamic perspective. It seems that Syed Qutb contends that in his writings which, if it is the case, I would disagree with this line of thinking.
It really does not matter if IFE considers Syed Qutb to be in the Movement at all. We have the leader (theological leader) of the movement, Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi saying that Syed Qutb or at least some of views are not in accordance with the views of the Movement and its founder. Please read:http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=21267
Allah knows Best
shukran akh abu muhammad. Why do you think it doesn’t matter if IFE considers qutb to be Islamic Movement or not? Please clarify.
Also, is Dr qaradawi really the theological leader of the movement? How can you say so? It is unclear if Dr Qaradawi himself even openly ascribes to the Islamic Movement.
From the link you provided, Dr qaradawi appears to suggest that Qutb was not from the muslim brotherhood. Let alone the MB, Dr qaradawi thinks that “The line of thought of Sayed Qutb was written during the last phase of his life affirming the somewhat deviation from the right path of the followers of Al Sunnah and Al Jama’ah,… Sayyed Qutb had missed the right path of Al Sunnah and Al Jama’ah followers where he refers to several reasons…”. I would be surprised if Dr qaradawi is suggesting that Qutb is not from the ahlussunnah wal jamaa’ah!
with all due respect to Shk Qaradawi, i don’t believe he has the right to excommunicate a prominent and hugely influencial member of the MB simply because he differed with his views. One couldn’t say that, because of some of dr qaradawi’s controversial views, that he too isn’t part of the muslim brotherhood.
All said, Qutb changed the world that we live in, he was an amazing character, even the prison guards that executed him were in awe of him, humbled by him. And yes, just to remind everyone, qutb, like banna, was martyred inshaa allaah shaheed by the secular govt of egypt for his views and opposition to the tyrant regime that still oppresses muslimeen today.
excommunicate from the party is what i meant and not from the deen. I thought i’ll just clarify that before any misunderstandings arise.