Two recent books on Islam present the good and ugly sides of postmodernism and critical studies. The first, "What is Islam?" by Shahab Ahmed, aims to disrupt academia's pseudo-metaphysics and give us a vision of Islam as the complex, deep product of historical continuity. This book does exactly the opposite: it highlights academic research which can be used to disrupt Islam's own historical continuity, insists on radical skepticism of any and all claims no matter their origin, and leaves the reader fairly confused by the end.
M. M. Knight views Islam from the eagle eye perspective of the postmodern scholar, as a convert who does not really know what he is looking at and feels like nobody else can claim to have such knowledge either. He provides a wealth of interesting historical examples to try to blur the boundaries of "magic" and "Islam". When he succeeds he provides insight, specifically regarding the power of dreams in Sunni tradition, and an endorsement of the orthodoxy of some aspects of lettrism -- lacking, however, any suggestion of how that orthodoxy might work as part of a larger metaphysics.
Most of the rest of the book is a mess. A mountain of academic articles are cited regarding the formation of orthodoxy in early Islamic history. One might expect Knight to dig in deep regarding "magical Islam in practice" in far flung places like Morocco, Pakistan or Indonesia. In fact there is literally zero discussion of this, other than a stray note that the Islam of Africans captured as slaves was possibly "syncretic" (a word Knight wants to avoid). We do get a very long chapter about scientific, rationalist and Masonic themes found in Nation of Islam teaching, which was educational but not really what I think of when I think about the topic of "magic in Islam".
The reason for all this mess is because Knight wants Islam to be a certain way, namely to give him a specific answer about how to achieve social justice, and he feels that the actually existing tradition falls short of his desires. Hence the desire for total disruption, not only of secular structures, but of any and all structures -- the best hope for reintroducing magic to Islam seems to involve allowing Derrida and Deleuze to take the place of Sunni commentators.
I have not read Knight's book "Why I Am a Five Percenter" but he also gives a description of the Five Percenters in this book and I think I can already guess his argument. Namely, he can choose to define "Five Percenters" however he pleases, so why not identify as one?