Much has been written about Islam in politics. Not much is written, however, about politics in Islam. What is axiomatic is that ruling elites "shape" knowledge to endorse their requirements, which is usually to maintain the status quo. Hence, the prohibition of private property was a feature of egalitarianism. The legalization of usury is a feature of the acquisitive nation.
Efforts to "shape" knowledge is reflected in the experience of dissidents. In so far as they feel threatened by dissenting perceptions, elites tend to enforce a uniform worldview, lest "national unity," or the "orthodoxy" could be in jeopardy. This is characteristic of egalitarianism, secularism or Islamism. However, as the experience of prophets also shows, dissenting perceptions at times do become the norm. The past confirms this. The French revolutionaries enforced the worldview of the Enlightenment through the Reign of Terror. Stalin enforced totalitarianism through purges and gulags. In Islam, Musa al-Hadi enforced tradition by murdering 5,000 thinkers in 786. Despotism enforces its worldview. Enforcement takes place through the use of brute force. Islam is presented as a religion that had an uninterrupted evolution, thus retaining its message in an uncorrupted form. The "classical tradition" is revered and presented as "authentic." Yet an examination supplies a different perception. For two factors affected if not altered the knowledge of Islam: tradition and politics. Fazlur Rahman differentiated between ideal and actual Islam. For practice does not always reflect theory perfectly. The latter veered from the former. Islam did not remain static. The fitnahs of Islam testify to divisions. Two transformations are perceptible, triggered by disparate events. The first took place when tradition ¬- in preference to reason - was engaged to "explain" revelation. This required the downgrading of reason and the elevation of tradition to revelation. The designation of tradition as "revelation," together with the ramifications of this event, transformed Islam into "traditional Islam." The second transformation took place when the ayah as-sayf allegedly "abrogated" the peace verses. The abrogation of the peace verses, a massive tampering with the teaching of revelation, together with the emergence of bellicose traditions, transformed Islam into "political Islam." It provided the justification for expansion, a precursor of "manifest destiny," the perceived obligation to spread the benefits of Islam around the world, as "manifest destiny" required "spreading democracy" globally. The transformation facilitated the adoption of the separation of the world into the "abode of peace" and "the abode of war," an early variant of the "clash of civilisations." This provided justification for the expansion of the empire. But true Islam is neither traditional nor political. It is universal. True Islam is trans-national and non-sectarian. The engagement of tradition to "supplement" and "explain" revelation, moreover, contradicted the perception that revelation was perfect, as a perfect revelation would hardly require being "supplemented," "explained," and "abrogated." The application of the theory of abrogation to revelation resulted in its restructuring with adverse results for the Muslim empire. The re-interpretation was facilitated by problematic folklore and the devaluation of reasoning. The wars of expansion were embarked upon in defiance of warning in revelation that "Allah does not love aggressors." The politicization of revelation was a reflection of tribal tendencies that tainted the knowledge of revelation. Applying a predicate to Islam transforms its meaning. Thus, Islam differs from "political Islam." Traditional Islam was formed by parochial tendencies. To recover universal Islam, it is necessary to free it of unwarranted accretions, assumptions as well as problematic practices pandering to the aspirations of the few.