Islamic Epistemology and the Illusion of Transcending Maslak

In our most recent work, we demonstrated how ʿilm (authentic knowledge) is gradually withdrawn and how the ignorant come to appear as the self-appointed contractors of Islam.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.