What exactly is Traditionalism?

[SilverFox]

Are 'traditionalist' Muslims following the genuine tradition of the Prophet (SAW), or are they following one that is distorted, or has deviated from his actions? Or does it have little to nothing to do with the Prophet, but rather a specific way of going about with interpretations of the Qur'an, Sunnah and Ahadith? I'm not sure what the term implies.

Cheers.

[lumumba_s]

"Traditionalism" can either refer to Perennialists or individuals who believe that our understanding and practice of the religion should be in accordance with the transmitted tradition of our predecessors. For a critical explanation from someone who considers himself to be from the latter, see: "Neo-Traditionalism" vs. "Traditionalism"

[Al-Boriqi]

"Traditionalism" can either refer to Perennialists or individuals who believe that our understanding and practice of the religion should be in accordance with the transmitted tradition of our predecessors. For a critical explanation from someone who considers himself to be from the latter, see: "Neo-Traditionalism" vs. "Traditionalism"

Im sorry to say but that link has very little link to the question posed brother.

aslaamu alaykum

[Al-Boriqi]

Are 'traditionalist' Muslims following the genuine tradition of the Prophet (SAW), or are they following one that is distorted, or has deviated from his actions? Or does it have little to nothing to do with the Prophet, but rather a specific way of going about with interpretations of the Qur'an, Sunnah and Ahadith? I'm not sure what the term implies.

Cheers.

There are two known factions that express the base of traditionalism.

There is the
1. ahlul-hadeeth faction
2. ahlul-bid'a faction

Both groups espouse "traditionalism" so one must know what is meant by traditionalism

The first faction which make up the ahlul-hadeeth, and they are the adherents to the athari or salafi creed, their view of traditionalism is based more on a logical and lexical outlook of the term. This menaing of traditionalism has more of a synchronicity with "orthodoxy". The logical premise behind this is being that in their view, there is no tradition except what has been transmitted. Whatever was not religion in the time of the prophet and his companions can never be a part of their religion at any time of the human experience. Under this madhaab, the idea of traditional is laid exclusively in following the tradition of the Prophet alayhi salatu salam and the deen whom Allah and His messenger sanctioned to be an acceptable source of derivation.

2. In the second faction, traditionalism takes on an entirely different role and holds a meaning more in sync with new formats and theories that have become widespread and accepted. Think of it as traditionalism based on "developed practice" In the religious framework, this is identified by orthodox traditionalist as "heterodoxy".

So as for fiqh for instance, there was no "traditionalism" about "madhaabs" in the first few centuris of Islam. There were hundreds of madhaabs because many of the Imaams were schools in and of themselves. Likewise there was no taqleed doctrine. The tradition prevelant for the entire Muslim world for the first 6 hundred years was based primarily on the laymen has no madhaab and that they are required to follow a trusted authority, no matter what madhaab they are. However, what jumpstarted this practice of taqleed doctrine to a specific madhaab was due to some of the Imaams of each madhaab who came together to address a world problem that took place in their time which was the convergence of shi'ite ideology into the Muslim world. To curve this mythology posing as religion, they countered it by formulating this doctrine whereby the gates to ijtihaad were closed and absolute adherence to the four schools is obligated on all and sundry. Since it was enforced by state policy, then it naturally became a phenomenon that morpshed into what people people identify as "tradition".

In doctrine, or aqeedah, the same applies but has graver consequences. The tradition of the Prophet was the tradition of his companions and their tradition was the tradition of the ahlu-hadeeth for the first three centuries. Each generation of the ahlul-hadeeth experienced several waves of alien counter ideologies that tried to inject their dogma into Islamic theology. Each movement failed. The jahmi creed failed to harm the salafi creed of the Muslim during that time and was laid to the ground by the representative theologians of the salafi creed like the four Imaams, their teachers, and their students, all of the authors of the hadeeth works. So orthodoxy in Islamic theology has been preserved. When Maturidism entered into the scene, it managed to remain as a theological school because
1. it mainly found its home among the Hanafis,. and the Hanafi madhaab during that time was heavily infiltrated by the M'utazilah. Thus the innovated doctrines of Abu Mansoor al-Maturidi found fertile ground in the Hanafi madhaab that it would have never found in the other three.
2. that doctrine became mostly isolated in what we identify as the central Asian region of today. This is because most of the polemic on aqeedah was mostly centralized to what we identify as the middle eastern region.

When Ash'arism came in, it was also a newly formulated doctrine that had nothing to do with Islamic theolofy of the salafi imaams of ahlul-hadeeth. Ash'arism as a madhaab was initiated after 300 hijrah, meaning that for three hundred years since the inception of Islam in the peninsula, there was no basis for theological constructs known as maturidism or ash'arism. For the next 280 years, Ash'arism remained an isolated and fringe movement which was noted by an ash'ari propaganist Ibn Asaakir in his famous history book. Then, two events emerged, one more profound than the other. The first was the barbarism and terrorism that was started by Ibn Tumart across North Africa. Ibn Tumart, being a new convert to this new ideology judged that the correct Islamic creed was the dogma he was taught by Ash'ari propagandist and made jihad with it against the Muslims. The terror caused by this ash'ari was far greater than the terro that was caused by a previous Ash'ari propagandist Abul-Hasan al-Qushayri.

At any rate, ibn tumart managed to divert the Muslim masses away form the religion of Islam as purpoted by the orthodox Imaams in the North African continent and into the Ash'ari doctrine, primarily by force and death. Eeventually this later on becomes "tradition".

The second event which is more profound is the nominating of power to an Ash'ari propagandist Nidhaamul-Mulk, who in his reign, political severed Islam and its orthodoxy and instituted Ash'arism on a global scale. Thus within a half century of this phenomenon, the Islamic world saw the proliferation of a once heterodox fringe minority whom they disrespected as being among the children of the older and destroyed ideologies like the jahmiyyah, M'utazilah, karaamiyyah,etc, and they saw the rise of Aristetilian religion being instituted as the basis for how we understand Islamic theology rather than understanding Islamic theology from the route of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

So in the wake of this intense experience for the Muslims who saw their religion being hijacked by this wave of greco-roman ideology, Asha'rism thereafter became a "tradition".

So you can see that tradition has a major difference in how it is understood between sunni Muslims and how it is understood with ahlul-bida. The groups that enter into this faction are most of the groups of sufism, all of the kalaam based groups, and the people who followed the late seventh century thinking of madhaabism and onwards. The traditionans frmulated in this period are the traditionas that these people refer to, they don't have in mind the religion espoused in the understanding found among the orthodox scholars prior to the invention of their schools of thought either in doctrine, fiqh, or ways and mannerisms in spirituality.

So allow me to express this dichotomy more vividly. I am a salafi and thus an adherent to the first faction. lumumba on the other hand belongs to the second faction, and we belong to these factions based on what we advocate, regardless if we agree or disagree on terminologies.

In easier terms, consider the first faction as the old school timers, the "mutaqadimeen" and consider the second faction as the "new schoolers", the "muta'aakhireen".

When the mutaqadimeen refer to traditionalism, they mean the orthodoxy of the very first affair, whatever the prophet and his companions understood to be deen and what they understood to be against religion. This is why we are identified as "atharis" or why our classical enemies refer to us as "hashawis" because whenever a ideologue of the second faction tried to validate their heterodox invention, we would throw at them a specific text as a proof against their bid'a (hence ahlul-bid'a). Because of this action, we were called as hashawis.

So whenever you here traditioonalism wrapped in the garb of
1. adhering to one of the four schools of fiqh
2. following ash'arism or maturidism in doctrine
3. following a path of tassawuf (sufism)

then know that this traditionalism is following the traditions of established heresies that became tradition centuries after prophetic traditionalism was the norm of Islamic religion among the Muslims masses.

Here is another example of how "traditionalism" gets formed in the wake of the muta'aakhireen. In the books of fiwh among the orthodox traditionalist, there was never a chapter on "visiting the prophets grave" during Hajj. Now, the topic itself is nothing wrong. The issue that arrises is that the reason why it eventually formed into a topic in fiqh was because the authors converted to these schools.

I hope this is satisfactory as yur question was inherently gargantuan in its implications.
asalamu alaykum