Where have we come from? How did the universe originate? How did ‘life’ originate? What’s the purpose of our lives? Where do we go after death? What’s the nature of ‘death’? How do we get our morality from? How do we decide what’s right and what’s wrong?
How do we attain knowledge? What are the tools of reaching the truth? What is the ultimate reality? Is there a GOD? If yes then how do we know it? What’s the nature of GOD? Can we communicate with it? Can we establish a relationship with it? If yes then how?
These are some of the most fundamental questions that man has been grappling with since time immemorial! Questions of metaphysics, ethics, philosophy of religion, epistemology, and now science.
There has been, and continues to be, five distinct approaches/ways/methods geared towards solving/ answering these questions:
(i.) Spiritualist approach. Supremacy of the immaterial spirit/soul. Primarily an inward journey or ‘mysticism’; the way of the mystics/yogis. Mahavira and Buddha for example.
(ii.) Rationalist approach. Supremacy of the mind/ rational faculties. Primarily a thought based/mental or ‘philosophical’ journey; the way of the philosophers. Socrates and Plato for example.
(iii.) Physicalist/Materialist approach. Supremacy of matter or the material world. Primarily the journey of the natural sciences or ‘scientism’; the way of materialist-naturalist scientists. Laplace and Einstein for example.
(iv.) Socialistic approach. Supremacy of human behaviour and organization in terms of the human society and its historical-cultural-social-economic- political-legal systems. The way of the social scientist. Confucius and Marx for example.
(v.) Scripturalist approach. Supremacy of sacred scripture/ Revelation(‘wahi’ in Arabic). The way of the ‘prophets of God’/‘messengers of God’ who claim to bring revelation/message/book/scripture from God! Jesus (pbuh) and Muhammad (pbuh) for example.
Ustadh Javed Ahmad Ghamidi gives a similar list but doesn’t include no.iv in it, but I feel it deserves to be taken as a distinct approach since it seeks to explain the world purely through a socio-economic-political lens!
Now, it’s pretty obvious that approach no.(v) cannot be taken by agnostics and atheists. And no.(iii) cannot be taken by theists. That doesn’t mean theists cannot do science! As there’s a difference between being a theist scientist (who studies the natural-material world and at the same time also believes that immaterial-metaphysical entities like soul and God exist) and being a materialist- naturalist who holds the position that nothing beyond matter exists.
Thus we do have devoutly theist scientists (like Newton) but no theist materialists as God is immaterial and to believe in God entails belief in existence of an entity that is immaterial and that contradicts the very definition of materialist-naturalism! Therefore, we can have only atheist materialist-naturalists like Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Sean Carroll; or agnostic materialist-naturalists like David Eagleman.
The remaining ones can be taken by theists, atheists, and agnostics alike. That is, we can have a theist mystic (Ramakrishna Paramahansa), an agnostic mystic (Buddha), or an atheist mystic (Mahavira). Likewise, there can be theist rationalist philosophers (Descartes and Berkeley), as well as atheist philosophers (Nietzsche and Sartre)! Similarly, we have socio-political theists (Syed Abul ala Maududi) as well as socio-political atheists (Marx) and agnostics (Confucius).
Now, these five broad approaches/methods have various sub-approaches or mindsets that I’ve listed and briefly explained in my articles no. 24 & 25:
Modernist versus Traditionalist.
Rationalist versus Literalist.
Liberal versus Hardline.
Iconoclastic versus Conformist.
Disruptive versus Conservative.
Holistic versus Reductionist.
Inclusivist versus Exclusivist.
Utilitarian/Pragmatic versus Idealistic.
Utilitarian versus Aesthetic.
Revisionist/conspiracy theorist versus Established narrativist.
In #24 I discussed how the different approaches and mindsets, along with personal subjective tastes /preferences and contemporary relevance-future prospects determine the choice of theism, atheism, or agnosticism. And then in #25 I discussed how the above factors determine one’s interpretation of the religion and the choice of the type/flavour of Islam for those who adopt it as their preferred theistic worldview.
Now I’ll elaborate more on the various types of Islam that exist based upon the above mentioned approaches and mindsets. Of course, what’s a given common feature amongst all the different versions of Islam is that they are all based upon approach no.(v) (i.e.; a revealed scripture, the Quran), and have no place for approach no.(iii) (i.e.; materialist naturalism or scientism, as already discussed above).
Types of Islam based upon the different approaches and mindsets
Approach no.i: Islam of the mystics, Sufism
Quran interpreted through the lens of mysticism, with tremendous emphasis on esoteric journey or ‘the path’ that leads to the direct experience of, and annihilation in/unity with, God; called the station or maqam of fanaa fillaah!
(i.a.) Traditionalist Sufism: The lens is that of mysticism through which scripture is interpreted, but scripture is the primary foundation. Elements of mysticism are incorporated into and conciliated with Islam.
It considers the Islamic Shariah to be exclusively critical for salvation, that is, traditionalist Sufis are salvific exclusivists. Considered to be mainstream Sufis.
Al Ghazali, Ibn Arabi, Abdul Qadir Gilani, Junaid Baghdadi, Al Suhrawardi, and a vast number of other such prominent and influential figures abound in the 1400 years of Islamic history.
(i.b.) Universalist/Perennialist Philosophical Sufism: Extreme form of Sufism. Independent fundamentals of mysticism form its primary framework while scripture is taken along with it as a supporting guide. Islam is incorporated into mysticism as the primary broader framework and not the other way round, i.e.; Islam isn’t the primary framework.
They are perennialists/universalists, that is, although themselves Muslims, they don’t consider the Islamic Shariah to be the only path to salvation. Thus the chief emphasis is on spiritual and moral cleansing, and on the direct spiritual experience of God leading to the ultimate station of fanaa fillaah, irrespective of the religion chosen to reach that stage.
Considered to be heretical or deviant by the traditionalist (mainstream) Sufis.
Mansour Hallaj is considered by many to be a classical example. Also the Sufis like Dara Shikoh, of Mughal India. And modern universalist/perennialist Sufis like Inayat Khan, Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schuon, Martin Lings, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, and Reza Aslan.
Approach no.ii: Islam of the philosophically inclined, the Falaasifa and the Mutakallimeen
Practiced philosophical-rational interpretation of scripture.
(ii.a.) The Falaasifa: the extremely rationalist philosophers of Islam. To them, the rationalist Greek philosophy or falsafa was paramount, through the lens of which the Quran was interpreted and the Religion was erected. So they were the modernist philosophers of their time. Whenever there was an apparent contradiction between their reason and scripture, they reinterpreted the scripture to fit with their reasoning. They didn’t rely much on ahadith.
Al Kindi, Al Farabi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, and the Mu’tazilites are prominent falaasifa amongst the medievals. In the current age, it’s the modernist- rationalist-philosophical thinkers who tried/try to provide modern interpretations of Islam; like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Abduh, Ismail al Faruqi, and Fazlur Rahman Malik.
(ii.b.) The Mutakallimeen: the traditionalist philosophical theologians of Islam. They used philosophical theology or kalam to interpret the Quran but within the primary framework of Islam. They rejected Greek philosophy, and relied much more on the ahadith than the falaasifa.
Amongst them, one subtype or mindset is that of those who do tawil or allegorical/metaphorical interpretation of the scripture(s). Abul Hasan al Asha’ri and the Asha’ris, Abu Mansur al Maturidi and the Maturidis, Al Ghazali, Fakhruddin-ar-Razi, being the chief examples.
Then there’s another sub-type that does theology with a literalist reading of the scripture, that is, no tawil; exemplified by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taimiyyah or the Atharis and the current Salafis. Although this sub-type claims to avoid and decries philosophy, little do they realize that any attempt to ‘make sense’ of the metaphysical issues contained in the scripture cannot work without utilizing philosophy in some form or the other, no matter how literalist the approach as that in itself is a philosophy of dealing with texts!
Approach no.iv: Islam of the socially inclined
With two subtypes/mindsets:
(a) the legalists/jurists (fuqaha),
(b) the missionaries/activists.
(iv.a.1) Fuqaha (jurists) focused on Hadith, the Ahlul Hadith: Hadith absolutists. Derive laws (fiqh) heavily and extensively from the ahadith (in addition to the Quran). Don’t differentiate between the Sunnah and the ahadith. Consider the ahadith to be a primary source of Islam alongside the Quran. Generally quite conservative and traditionalist.
Amongst them are the Usulis, those who are not literalists and have a very elaborate set of principles (usul) for extraction of laws from the Quran and the ahadith. Al Shafi’i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taimiyyah are some classical cases.
Then there’s the literalists (dhaahiris/zaahiris) like Ibn Hazm and the current Salafis who take the text of the ahadith very literally! This clan is usually not so much interested in, rather discourages mysticism/Sufism and philosophy/kalam.
(iv.a.2) Fuqaha focused on the Quran and reasoning, the Ahlur Rayy: Hadith relativists. Considered Sunnah to be separate and different from the ahadith. Considered ahadith to be a dhanni/zanni (non-definite/uncertain) corpus, that is, they didn’t consider the ahadith to be a primary source of Islam. The validity of ahadith was verified under the guidance of the Quran, established principles, and sound reason.
Imam Abu Hanifa and the early school of Kufa, and imam Malik and the early school of Madinah being the best examples from the heydays of Islam.
They too were/are usulis, but could either be very conservative (most of them throughout the history of Islam) or could be quite modernist-liberalist like Ibn Ashour, Mufti Abu Layth al Maliki, Khaled Abou el Fadl, etc.
(iv.a.3) Fuqaha focused on the Quran’s language & linguistics, and reasoning; particularly the Farahi school of thought:
Hameeduddin Farahi, his student Amin Ahsan Islahi, and then his student Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, and then dozens of Ghamidi’s students like Sajid Hameed, Hasan Ilyas, Khalid Zaheer, Shehzad Saleem, Ammar Khan Nasir, etc.
They consider the Quran and the Sunnah to be the only primary sources of fundamental Islam. While the ahadith (and other sources) are considered to be secondary in authority that can serve as a basis for only secondary rulings or fiqh but not of the primary laws or Shariah. So they have this strict demarcation between the Sunnah and the ahadith; and between the Shariah and fiqh.
They consider the Quran to be perfectly contextual and self explanatory hence they interpret the Quran through the Quran only, according to the natural principles and rules of the Arabic language and linguistics given that the Quran is a speech (of God)!
They don’t interpret the Quran in light of the ahadith, rather the ahadith are scrutinized and interpreted in light of the Quran. Neither do they interpret the Quran through the lens of other streams like philosophy, mysticism, history, politics. Their approach is purely revelation based, and the scripture is understood and interpreted through the tools of language only (as the Quran is a speech).
Sufism, detailed philosophical theology/aqeedah/ kalam, history/ahadith, politics and economics, are considered to be fields separate from pure Islam. Albeit, elements of these fields could be incorporated into Islam as non-essential or secondary parts of it if they don’t contradict the clear text of the Quran and the practices under the established Sunnah. Hence they discourage mysticism/sufism and kalam/philosophy.
They are quite modernist and rationalist, pro democracy and pro secularism. Encourage science and the social sciences, and dead against political- jihadist forms of Islam.
(iv.b.) Activists: More focus on activism than on law/ fiqh or mysticism/sufism or philosophical theology/ kalam/aqeedah.
(iv.b.1) Political-pan Islamists: Syed Abul ala Maududi and the Jamaat-e-Islami; Hasan al Banna, Syed Qutb, and the Ikhwaan-al-Muslimeen (the Muslim Brotherhood). They are non-violent political islamists.
And then there’s also those groups that advocate violence under the ideology of armed struggle/ jihad, like the Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc.
(iv.b.2) Apolitical-quietists: The various missionary/ da’wah guys and their organizations, like Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Naik, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, and Wahiduddin Khan, who stress upon the delivery of the message of Islam to non-Muslims.
And also the ones like Tablighi Jamaat who focus only on the Muslims.
(iv.b.3) Modernist thinkers, reformers, and educationists: Obsessed with modern education and social-economic-political-material transformation/progress of the Muslims.
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and his Aligarh movement in India that spawned other thinkers and educationists like Shibli Nomani, Allama Iqbal, Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar, Abul Kalam Azad, etc. Also noteworthy is the Muhammadiyah movement of Indonesia.
Another set of activists includes the ultra modernist-ultra liberal reformers/thinkers calling for an extremely modern-progressive-secular Islam that is non-patriarchal and LGBTQI+ friendly, like Amina Wadud, Adis Duderija, Ani Zonneveld and the Muslims for Progressive Values (MPVs), etc.
In addition to the above broad approaches and mindsets, there are various schools and movements that combine multiple approaches and mindsets together to form complex flavours of Islam that serve the respective socio-political contexts that they arise from and are a part of! Let’s have a look at some of them.
Scholars, schools, and movements that combine(d) multiple approaches and mindsets
(1) The Khairabadis, the Deobandis, the Nadwis, the Barelvis, the Azharis, etc.
They embody the Islam of Al Ghazali and Shah Waliullah.
Staunch legalists who are ultra traditionalist usulis, combining traditionalist Sufism, affiliated to one of the tareeqah or Sufi orders (Qadri, Chishti, Qasmi, etc.) + subscribe to kalam/detailed philosophical theology/aqeedah of one of the canonical schools of tawil based theology (Asha’ri or Maturidi) + fiqah/fiqh of one of the four canonical schools of Sunni jurisprudence (mostly Hanafi, Shafaii, Maliki) + make ample use of hadith/tareekh/seerah but aren’t hadith absolutists (unless they are Shafaiis).
Strictly muqallideen, that is, adhere (taqlid) to one of the canonical Sunni schools (madhaaib, pl. of madhab) of jurisprudence and law (fiqh).
Do politics as and when required.
(2) The current Salafis who embody the Islam of Ibn Taimiyyah, are legalist traditionalists obsessed with the ahadith (hadith absolutists).
Ghair muqallideen, i.e.; don’t stick strictly to any of the four canonical schools of Sunni fiqh.
Athari in creed, thus their theology aims to be free from tawil, i.e.; based on the literal reading of the texts (the Quran and the ahadith).
Detest Sufism. Politically they could be quietist, pan-Islamist, or jihadist.
(3) Jamaat-e-Islami and the Ikhwan-al-Muslimeen (the Muslim Brotherhood): Political pan-Islamists of the Indian subcontinent and the Arab world respectively.
Jamaat-e-Islami peeps are generally Hanafi but may also be Salafi oriented. The Ikhwanis are generally Shafaii or Salafi (like Hasan al Banna). The school of fiqh is not a big deal to them as their focus is not on the school being followed but on the activism to establish Islam politically.
The Quran is more central to their ideology while the ahadith isn’t taken too seriously, rather the life of the Prophet (seerah) is more of an inspiration to them.
Aqeedah is of least concern while Sufism is discouraged.
(4) The Tablighi Jamaat: Traditionalist, quietist missionaries focused only on calling fellow Muslims to their version of Islam.
Mostly muqallid Deobandi-Hanafi in fiqh but many tablighis belong to other schools too, like the Shafaii tablighis of Malaysia and Indonesia. Yet, like other missionaries, their emphasis isn’t upon the school of fiqh but upon following and calling others to follow traditionalist Islam in letter and spirit.
Although their books Fazaaile Sadaqat and Fazaaile Durood are replete with elements of Sufism, in practice they are far away from any form of Sufism whatsoever; nor do they engage in kalam or philosophy in any form.
And several more such schools or factions exist that embody multiple approaches and mindsets.
Now let’s conclude with a tabular summary of the article!
The five different approaches to Truth:
| (i.) Spiritualist | (ii.) Rationalist | (iii.) Physicalist/ materialist | (iv.) Socialistic | (v.) Scripturalist |
| *Primacy of the immaterial spirit/soul. *Way of the mystics. *Mahavira and Buddha. | *Primacy of the mind/rational faculties. *Way of the philosophers. *Socrates and Plato. | *Primacy of matter or the material world. *Way of materialist-naturalist scientists. *Laplace and Einstein. | *Primacy of human historical-cultural- social-economic-political-legal systems. *Way of the social scientists. *Confucius and Marx. | *Primacy of sacred scripture/ Revelation. *Way of the prophets. *Jesus and Muhammad. |
- Muslims cannot be no.(iii), materialist-naturalists.
- Muslims of all denominations are foundationally Scripturalists (no.v) as the very basis of their faith is the Quran.
Sub-approaches or Mindsets:
Modernist versus Traditionalist;
Rationalist versus Literalist;
Liberal versus Hardline;
Iconoclastic versus Conformist;
Disruptive versus Conservative;
Holistic versus Reductionist;
Inclusivist versus Exclusivist;
Utilitarian/Pragmatic versus Idealistic;
Utilitarian versus Aesthetic;
Revisionist/conspiracy theorist versus Established Narrativist.
Types of Islam based upon the different approaches and mindsets
Approach no.i: Islam of the mystics, Sufism:
| (i.a.) Traditionalist Sufism | (i.b.) Universalist/Perennialist Philosophical Sufism |
| *Scripture interpreted through the lens of mysticism, with scripture/Islam as the primary foundation. *Salvific exclusivists, i.e.; consider the Islamic Shariah to be exclusively critical for salvation. *Al Ghazali, Ibn Arabi, Abdul Qadir Gilani, Junaid Baghdadi, Al Suhrawardi. | *Islam isn’t the primary framework. Independent fundamentals of mysticism form its primary framework while scripture is taken along with it as a supporting guide. *Perennialists/universalists, although themselves Muslims, don’t consider the Islamic Shariah to be the only path to salvation. The chief emphasis is on spiritual and moral cleansing, and on the direct spiritual experience of God. *Inayat Khan, Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schuon, Martin Lings, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, and Reza Aslan. |
Approach no.ii: Islam of the philosophically inclined, the Falaasifa & the Mutakallimeen
| (ii.a.) Falaasifa: the extremely rationalist philosophers | (ii.b.) Mutakallimeen: the traditionalist philosophical theologians |
| *The modernist philosophers of their time. Rationalist Greek philosophy or falsafa was the lens through which the Quran was interpreted. *In case of an apparent contradiction between (their) reason and scripture, the scripture was reinterpreted to fit with their reasoning. They didn’t rely much on ahadith. *Al Kindi, Al Farabi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, and the Mu’tazilites. *In the current age, the modernist-rationalist-philosophical thinkers like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Abduh, Ismail al Faruqi, and Fazlur Rahman Malik. | *Used philosophical theology or kalam to interpret the Quran but within the primary framework of Islam. *Rejected Greek philosophy, and relied much more on the ahadith than the falaasifa. *Subtype/mindset 1: Do tawil or allegorical/ metaphorical interpretation of the scripture(s). E.g.; Abul Hasan al Asha’ri and the Asha’ris, Abu Mansur al Maturidi and the Maturidis, Al Ghazali, Fakhruddin-ar-Razi, etc. *Subtype/mindset 2: Do theology with a literalist reading of the scripture, that is, no tawil; exemplified by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taimiyyah or the Atharis and the current Salafis. |
Approach no.iv: Islam of the socially inclined
With two subtypes/mindsets:
(a) the legalists/jurists (fuqaha),
(b) the missionaries/activists.
(iv.a) The legalists/jurists (fuqaha):
| (iv.a.1) Fuqaha (jurists) focused on Hadith, the Ahlul Hadith: Hadith absolutists | (iv.a.2) Fuqaha focused on the Quran and reasoning, the Ahlur Rayy: Hadith relativists | (iv.a.3) Fuqaha focused on the Quran’s language & linguistics, and reasoning |
| *Derive laws (fiqh) heavily and extensively from the ahadith (in addition to the Quran). *Consider the ahadith to be a primary source of Islam alongside the Quran. Don’t differentiate between the Sunnah and the ahadith. *Generally quite conservative and traditionalist. *Consist of two subtypes/mindsets: The Usulis: Non-literalists with a very elaborate set of principles (usul) for extraction of laws from the Quran and the ahadith. E.g.; Al Shafi’i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taimiyyah. The literalists (dhaahiris/zaahiris): take the text of the ahadith very literally! Usually not so much interested in, rather discourage mysticism/Sufism and philosophy/kalam. E.g.; Ibn Hazm and the current Salafis. | *Consider Sunnah to be separate and different from the ahadith. *Ahadith considered to be a dhanni/zanni (non-definite/uncertain) corpus hence not a primary source of Islam. *Validity of ahadith verified under the light of the Quran, established principles, and sound reason. *Imam Abu Hanifa and the early school of Kufa, and imam Malik and the early school of Madinah being the best examples from early Islam. *Usulis, but could either be very conservative (most of them throughout the history of Islam) Or could be quite modernist-liberalist like Ibn Ashour, Mufti Abu Layth al Maliki, Khaled Abou el Fadl, etc. | *Consider the Quran and the Sunnah to be the only primary sources of fundamental Islam. The ahadith (and other sources) considered to be secondary in authority. *Don’t interpret the Quran in light of the ahadith, rather the ahadith are scrutinized and interpreted in light of the Quran. *Quran not interpreted even through the lens of other streams like philosophy, mysticism, history, politics. A purely revelation based approach that considers the Quran to be perfectly contextual and self explanatory hence the Quran interprets itself, as per the natural principles and rules of the Arabic language and linguistics (given that the Quran is a speech of God)! *Sufism, detailed philosophical theology/kalam, history/ahadith, politics and economics, all considered to be fields separate from pure Islam. Elements of these fields incorporated into Islam as non-essential or secondary parts of it only if they don’t contradict the clear text of the Quran and the practices under the established Sunnah. *Mysticism/Sufism and kalam/philosophy is discouraged. *Quite modernist and rationalist, pro democracy and pro secularism. Encourage science and the social sciences, and dead against political-jihadist forms of Islam. E.g.; Hameeduddin Farahi, Amin Ahsan Islahi, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. |
(iv.b.) The Activists:
| (iv.b.1) Political-pan Islamists | (iv.b.2) Apolitical-quietists | (iv.b.3) Modernist thinkers, reformers, and educationists |
| *Non-violent political islamists: Syed Abul ala Maududi and the Jamaat-e-Islami; Hasan al Banna, Syed Qutb, and the Ikhwaan-al-Muslimeen (the Muslim Brotherhood). *Violent jihadists: groups that advocate violence under the ideology of armed struggle/jihad, like the Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. | *Those who stress upon the delivery of the message of Islam to non-Muslims: Preachers/da’wah guys and their organizations, like Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Naik, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, and Wahiduddin Khan. *The ones who focus only on the Muslims: Tablighi Jamaat. | *Obsessed with modern education and social-economic-political-material transformation/progress of the Muslims. E.g.; Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and his Aligarh movement in India. *Another subtype of activists is the ultra modernist-ultra liberal reformers: Calling for an extremely modern-progressive-secular Islam that is non-patriarchal and LGBTQI+ friendly, like Amina Wadud, Adis Duderija, Ani Zonneveld and the Muslims for Progressive Values (MPVs), etc. |