This is my response to Majid Nawaz’s article called ‘On the Distinction between Islam and Islamism’

published in The Ravi 2010 [see this link for Majid’s artice:
http://www.scribd.com/full/45837091?access_key=key-5nz2ia2kh84mttzf9bl ] Majid’s philosophy is
serving as an inspiration for a politically active group in Pakistan called ‘Khudi.’ [See official
Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/khudipakistan ]

I applaud Majid’s effort at extricating Islam from Islamism. However, after reading the article, I felt
that Majid’s view of Islam is one of a personal faith that does not rock the boat. Curiously, there is no
discussion on the rightful place of Jihad in Islam in an article that focuses on ‘Islamism’ and the
author is suggesting that there is nothing political about Islam (perhaps understandable in the light of
stereotyping that is triggered when the word Jihad is mentioned).

It isn’t the presence of the term ‘Islam’ in ‘Islamism’ that is disturbing for me but the definition of
‘Islam’ and ‘Islamism’ given by Majid. On the Khudi page, the word ‘Islamism’ has been used for my
points of view as well, as this is a convenient label for any Muslim who dares to question the
sheepish view of Islam. My contention with the Khudi editorial team then, as now, was that Islamism
is a derogatory word used to label certain Muslims. That was denied at the time but I can now say,
with more confidence, that Islamism is a derogatory term and Majid is inadvertently cementing the
stigma he alludes to in his article. This is compounded by the fact that he also fails to identify the
type of politics ‘normal’ conservative Muslims are involved in.

There are some fundamental weaknesses in Majid’s article which make his argument tenuous. As I
have mentioned before, I am neither a cleric nor a scholar but an ordinary person who, like Majid,
made the effort to learn Islam for herself. However, the context was very different and I think that
Majid’s previous stint with Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT) may have coloured his interpretations of political Islam.

Islam, at the moment, is at a historic low. The followers of this religion are segmented into various
sects that are at constant war with each other; this has played a prominent role in creating the
present distorted face of Islam. On the one hand, we have the ‘all is acceptable’ school of thought;
mostly adherents of Sufism tend to belong to this school. This school of thought recommends
accepting all sects and all practices as Islamic. However, this is a seriously flawed approach. Beliefs
determine actions and because different sects have divergent beliefs, they manifest themselves in
such a way that there is constant, futile debate on mundane issues. The result is a rat race to prove
which sect is the ‘chosen’ one worthy of salvation on the Day of Judgment. This warfare has left
Islam bleeding and weak, and Muslims increasingly intolerant.

1
As Islam’s central tenet of Tauheed became more and more muddled due to the abundance of
many, often contradictory interpretations, some Muslims sought to ‘purify’ Islam from scholarly
obscurantism and the advances of Sufism: the Wahhabi movement was born in the late 18th century
and gained momentum in the 19th century, when Muslims struggled against the onslaught of
capitalism (Charles Tripp, 2006)1. In this urge to purify Islam, an extreme interpretation of Shariah
came into being which resulted in giving more importance to the concept of ‘Takfeer’ or
‘excommunication’ than is found in Islam2. Suddenly, blasphemy and apostasy took on more sinister
tones and were used to discriminate against dissenters. People were labeled as non-Muslims, kafir
or infidels who were liable to be killed. The inevitable consequence was that countries like Pakistan
became the ‘land of disbelief’ and certain sects were singled out as apostates. For Majid, this is an
issue of politicisation but people like myself view this as an issue of interpretation.

However, Majid makes the classical error that others in his position have made. As he detaches
himself from the poisonous tentacles of HT, he strides to the other extreme and joins the camp which
views Islam as a personal religion confined to households or communities. Let me clarify this a bit
more.

Majid says that:

“The first is the Islamists’ belief that Islam is not a religion, but a divine political
ideology surpassing communism and capitalism……An implication of this is the
Islamist assertion that Islam must have provided a detailed and divinely pre-ordained
stance on matters such as political structure or the economy….[Islam’s stance] has
to lie in contradistinction with the existing structures of capitalism and communism.

My response is that as with any other aspect of our existence, Islam has indeed provided the basic
guidelines or framework which will result in the emergence of a political economy which will markedly
differ from communism or capitalism. The beauty of Islam is its applicability; it never becomes
redundant or obsolete. A simple understanding of the concept of riba or ‘interest’ tells us that if an
economy is structured along those lines, then the resulting economic set up will have a strong moral
compass (permissible or halal business activity). Unlike communism, private ownership will be
allowed. One can also easily predict a highly redistributive economy with social mobility and low
taxation. There will be no debt-based illusions of growth. Islam will allow true economic freedom and
therefore, it will be neither capitalistic nor communistic.

1
Tripp, C. Islam and the Moral Economy. 2006. Cambridge University Press.
2
In fact, Islam puts more emphasis on the rejection of Taghoot while Takfeer has little value in Islam.
2
HT is correct in highlighting the distinctions (not necessarily contradictory); but HT’s approach
towards establishing a new system is incorrect and unIslamic. HT identifies capitalism as kufr and
declares war on it. Islam eliminates riba and provides an effective alternative. This difference in
approach is very important to understand. Islam does not slash every capitalist’s throat with a sword
but rather comes up with a clear logical alternative which can be implemented at state level. (This
has implications for an Islamic state, the most important one being that a democratic majority will not
be able to legislate in favour of riba.)

Majid then says that the word ‘Deen’ can be translated as ‘religion’. The word ‘religion’ carries two
connotations with it: one is that of importance of rituals and the other is that of it belonging to the
personal realm. Islam as a Deen is more aptly described as a way of life: it gives us guidance on
belief and worship, day to day conduct or Ikhlaq, the importance of equality (enshrined in the Last
Sermon of Muhammad SAW), dealings with non-Muslims, the importance of dawah, and indeed, on
how to carry out commercial activity. In Ash-Shura [42:13] Allah asks Muslims to establish the
Deen. Yet, Majid only makes a concession by acknowledging the existence of a city-state and the
subsequent expansion is seen as outdated.

Mainstream Muslims and reformists have used the word ‘Deen’ in the broader sense. Linguistically,
Deen can mean law, obedience, submission, constitution, or the path to be followed. The meaning of
Deen as religion makes it too narrow and it is only a Muslim with secular leanings who would allude
to Islam as a religion; a corollary of which is that it only governs the man-divine relationship and is
separate from other areas of life, including politics.

Islam is a Deen of the collective (ikhwa or Ummah). After reading Majid’s article, I got the distinct
impression that Majid wants to view Islam as a faith which governs the personal but not the collective
( I am happy to be proved wrong about this). This idea of Islam as a personal religion has
implications: it enables political activism to be conducted on behalf of Muslims but with the stated
aim of creating a secular state (Khudi’s vision). This is to be accomplished by convincing Muslims
that there is no such thing as an Islamic state because Islam is a religion with no opinions about
other aspects of life.

Majid then says that a qualified theologian will rarely claim that Islam is a political ideology. I agree to
an extent. Islam does not go into detail as to how a state should be set up, or how votes should be
counted. Islam brings change by changing beliefs and actions and only expects establishment of

3
the authority of Muslims after they have become a significant majority. But Islam is not politically
acquiescent to the Zeitgeist.

[An-Noor 24:55]
Allah hath promised such of you as believe and do good work that He will surely make them to
succeed (the present rulers) in the earth even as He caused those who were before them to succeed
(others); and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He hath approved for
them, and will give them in exchange safety after their fear. They serve Me. They ascribe no thing as
partner unto Me. Those who disbelieve henceforth, they are the miscreants. [Pickthal 24:55]

Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous good deeds, that He will
certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the land, as He granted it to those before
them, and that He will grant them the authority to practise their religion which He has chosen
for them (i.e. Islam). And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear
(provided) they (believers) worship Me and do not associate anything (in worship) with Me. But
whoever disbelieves after this, they are the Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah). [Mohsin Khan
24:55]

To say that there was nothing political about Islam, that no establishment existed, is to either deny
thousands of years’ worth of history or to consign the idea to the ‘redundant Middle Age claptrap’
archive (Majid comes close to attempting the latter).

If we cast our eye on the monotheistic religions taught by the messengers of Allah, we see that the
message of Tauheed was consistently the same. There was much in common: Jesus (AS)
confronted the money lenders at the temple and the Talmud talks about the dust of riba as does the
Sahih of Bukhari. Yet, Ibraham, Moses and Jesus, those great prophets, did not create a
government through the nomination of an administrative head. It is indeed the creation of an
‘administrative body’ (I will use this term since Majid doesn’t like the phrase ‘Islamic state’) - that
administers taxes, collects and distributes Zakat revenue, creates stipends, creates a military,
creates courts of law, implements punishments, establishes satellite governorships and creates
market places for trade - that distinguishes Islam from other monotheistic religions. Majid is giving
the impression that all of this does not exist in Islam, when it is verifiable fact.

Islam, thus, was the social and political ‘implementation’ of Tauheed. Muhammad (SAW) showed
us what an Islamic society supported by an Islamic administration will look like. He struggled
against the oppression of Muslims and created a peaceful place for them to worship Allah and live

4
according to His moral code, free from the fear of death or persecution. This is in keeping with the
Qur’an [24:55] quoted above.

Majid then goes on to say that the synchronisation of Shariah law with the legal or illegal of state law
is a modern concept. All I would offer in response are some examples:

1. Abu Bakr (RA) declared war against those Muslims who refused to pay Zakat. They were
treated as apostates who were actively damaging the cause of Islam.
2. Umar (RA) wanted to fix the amount of Mahr (dowry) and was told by a female Muslim that
he could not do so because Muhammad (SAW) never legislated this.
3. The Islamic economy was riba free; and I say this while acknowledging the fact that dealing
in riba was not a punishable sin in state law. (Effectively, the court of law could give time to a
debtor in difficulty or ask the lender to write off the loan. The laws for enforceability of debts
and validity of contracts changed under the Islamic administration.)
4. The punishments for murder, adultery and theft were implemented through the court of law.

So whilst Majid has issued a blanket statement that Shariah law had no relevance to the laws of the
state, I am simply adding a qualifier that a distinction was made between what was enforceable at
individual level (e.g. Hijab) and what was enforceable at state level (e.g. Zakat, jizya, market
inspections).

In Majid’s article, a strange vacuum exists after the death of Muhammad (SAW). There are no
references at all to the leadership of the rightly guided caliphs who succeeded in creating welfare
societies that thrived on academic advances and research. Majid has referred to them in passing by
saying:

“….Muslim theological authorities in each country have time and again made
the point that the days of religiously inspired expansionism went out with the Middle
Ages.”

Majid provides no references to back this claim.

Majid then mentions the concept of Ummah. I think that Majid is viewing this in the context of
allegiance to the state in which Muslims live and I can identify with this as I live in a secular country
myself. For instance, when in the UK, a Muslim must abide by its laws as he has chosen to live
there. (The only exception will be if the laws ask him to renounce Islam or commit shirk and in that

5
case, he should emigrate.) There can be no justification for causing damage to the British state in
the name of Islam or allegiance to the Ummah.

As is demanded by a secular state, religion pertains only to the personal or perhaps the community.
In certain circumstances, many Muslims choose to draw a line at a personal level. An example could
be the very difficult situation which was created when the Iraq war started. But this is an issue of
integration and there are no easy solutions to this problem. Muslims see the world differently and the
concept of ‘other people’ is mutually held by the various ethnicities living in multicultural societies.

Majid should however, have highlighted the correct concept of the Ummah. It is indeed an
international community in the sense that it shares common beliefs and ways of living. It is bound by
the ‘Islamic’ lens through which Muslims view the world. There is no room for nationalism in Islam
and I have previously had discussions with Khudi about this. Does this automatically mean a
tendency towards creating a global state under Islam? No.

The creation of an expansionist Muslim bloc has nothing to do with Jihad; that was more Bush
Junior’s vision of America with its doctrine of pre-emption. Jihad is simply a struggle against fitna
(oppression) or persecution of Muslims. Only in certain conditions, Allah has allowed qitaal (war
where casualties take place). This allowance has been made so that Muslims do not suffer ethnic
cleansing like sitting ducks.

Ummah, on the other hand, is a brilliant concept that does not require global expansion for its
existence and nurture. An Ummah relies solely on dawah or the teaching of the message of Islam.
Due to this reason, an expansionist vision has no importance in Islam.

A Muslim leader can work towards removing a tyrannical oppressive regime in order to give people
their rights. A comparison with communism is not a good one, since communism was not guided by
religion: it did not ask the proletariat to fight in the cause of Allah. There is enough historical
precedent for aggressive action in certain circumstances (for instance, see Sahih Bukhari 52:187,
01:06 and 53:286). We should not be ashamed of ourselves; the West cannot judge Islam after Iraq
and Wikileaks. The USA and the UK did Jihad for crude oil (disguised as a struggle against a
despot). It is the tragedy of our times that if a true Muslim ruler were to overthrow an oppressive
dictator in the name of Allah, it will turn into an incident of ‘Islamist extremism.’

I admire Majid’s breaking away from HT and his efforts at creating a better image of Islam through
improved awareness but he does not have to be ashamed of Islam. Jihad exists in Islam and Allah

6
promises in 24:55 to give authority to Muslims on this earth. We need to develop our understanding
of Islam, of Jihad and the expansion undertaken in the Middle Ages by the best followers of Islam. If
Islam said to its followers that they should pray, fast and then die - that Islam was just a faith that
resided in the personal realm - then why was a state formed which had a distinct ethos based on the
Qur’an? Are we saying that the Islamic state and its continuity as a caliphate came about by
accident? Even the Western apologists know that what distinguishes Islam from Judaism and
Christianity is its political aspect. They know that Muhammad (SAW), in his life, expanded the
Islamic state, that he was a teacher, a commander in battle and an administrative head.

We need to break free of our inferiority complex as Muslims. When we appear sheepish and
embarrassed, we let the West and other Muslim ‘progressives’ manipulate us even more. We need
to learn Islam with an unbiased mind for it is a wonderful Deen that holds social welfare in high
esteem. Islam has the solution for the modern-day slavery created by capitalism and Muslims must
be proud of the incisiveness of Islam’s vision of society. What is wrong with HT, as with other
extreme organisations, is their approach to implementation and their reliance on ‘Takfeer’. Instead of
creating a milder version of Islam and consigning political aspirations to ‘Islamism’, we must simply
understand Islam. It is HT’s version of Islam that needs to be corrected or refuted. But when making
such an attempt, Majid shouldn’t redefine Islam or rewrite history.

After reading Majid’s article, it felt as if aspiring to create a space for Muslims in this world, where
rules of Islam apply, is to be called an ‘Islamist.’ Majid should not take this aspiration away from
Muslims. Even secular atheists want a state where they can practice whatever they want, where
evolution is taught as science and religion is taught as medieval fairy tales, and where the law does
not allow faith schools to be set up. They want legislative authority for their world view. Would Majid
consider it fair if Muslims also demanded the same in places where they constitute a majority?

If a Muslim aspires to being a part of a group of true Muslims, to live in a land where there is no riba,
where governance is based on Shurah and where media is controlled so it does not turn women into
objects of lust, does that make him an Islamist? No. If he says that Jihad is incumbent on Muslims if
their lives and lands are threatened, does that make him an Islamist? No. If he says that the Muslim
Ummah is not bound to geographical boundaries, does that make him an Islamist? No.

But, if he says Islam must be implemented through military might, that no allegiance is owed to the
government of the infidels where he lives, that suicide bombings are martyrdom and that he will kill
the grave worshipper instead of doing dawah to him, then does that make him an Islamist? Yes. The
definition is simple: an Islamist is simply a person hungry for power over others, undertaking a

7
campaign of terror and policing other’s thoughts, all under the guise of Islam. A professional paid
mullah is an Islamist because he plants hatred in the mind of his followers. HT is Islamist because it
excommunicates anyone not agreeing with it and considers it Islamic to persecute them. The Saudi
regime is Islamist because it imposes the Hijab through state law and oppresses women.

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) emphasised on creating a body of believers. The issue at stake is
Tauheed and Ibn e Taymiyyah has hit the nail on its head. Muslims need to do dawah to Muslims to
bring to them an understanding of Islam. All other problems will sort themselves out. Majid focuses
on the political but that is just the symptom of the malaise, not the cause.

If Majid had simply said in his article that working towards a global Islamic state is not a pillar of the
faith, then I would have agreed wholeheartedly. But what he is subtly attempting is to consign Islam
to the four walls of a household, so that a secular state can be created to govern a Muslim majority.
This is reflected in Khudi’s approach to the implementation of this philosophy: a nationalistic cause
promoted through rock music in a state where one must not identify kufr or shirk in the public realm
because it makes some people uncomfortable. I objected to this not because I hold any grudge
against Khudi but because both Khudi and Majid are attempting to put an Islamic guise on it. I have
said to Khudi before that they should not mix their vision with Islam as that will create complexities
for them.

The cynic in me, who has seen Pakistan from the inside, is tempted to take the view that Majid
knows that Pakistan is a very confused society that wants to live a predominantly secular life but
cannot shake off the almost compulsive urge to identify itself as a Muslim society. Given this
constraint and the hold of the mullah, for any political activism to be palatable in Pakistan, it has to
be labeled as ‘Islamic.’

S. Akram
Dec 25, 2010