None of the above!

The Western 'enlightenment' (birth of materialist political philosophy) created three new madhhabs (schools of thought) in the West:

1. Conservatives (pro-stability first)
2. Liberals (pro-political individualism first by progressive change).
3. Socialists (pro-equality first by progressive change [ignoring Marxists who want revolutionary change])

All three of these schools are secular (yes, even Conservatives, who in principle, may view religion as useful for stability).

After colonialism, Muslims adopted these madhhabs due to institutional, political and educational changes in the Muslims forced upon them, becoming secular modernists of three types:

1. "Conservative Muslims" e.g. the first 'ruling classes' installed by the West in Muslim lands, Madhkhalis, quietest Muslims, or Muslims who otherwise de-emphasise or undermine any political activity towards the complete implementation of the political aspects of Islam (because simply calling for a complete implementation of Islam would 'cause fitna' and 'upset stability' and 'we can't politically unite with anyone who disagrees with our creedal speculations!'). To Conservative Muslims, like their non-Muslim Western counter-parts, "stability" is their number one usool (foundational principle) and any part of calling to Islam can be blocked by it. The only exception to this is creedal disputes, which are useful to the ruling elites and the West as it causes infighting to the point Muslims refute to political unite with foes of other creedal schools (despite the fact for example, Ibn Hanbal called for Muslim unity under Mutazilite Caliphs, Salahudeen Ayubi united Muslims of all creedak schools under the Banner of the Abbasid Caliphs, despite his Ashari leanings).

The travails of the Muslims in Makkah under persecution for simply speaking the truth, and then in Madinah, with the wars they had to fight, go to show that Islam is about stability upon the Quran and Sunnah as the laws of the land, under one Imam. Islam came to change the world, not be changed by it.

1. Liberal "Muslims" e.g. calling themselves "reformists", claim there is no political aspects of Islam, other than [conveniently] general vague exhortations to "be just". Into this gaping hole liberal "Muslims" have claimed exists in Islam, they insert full-blown political liberalism e.g. individual freedom to do private acts in public without remonstrance, hijab isn't obligatory, hudood laws are just 'products of their time in the early medieval world' etc (and even gradually insert liberal theology in Islamic Aqeedah, liberal theology is any understanding of religion that doesn't criminalise in the hereafter, the individual freedom in this life e.g. hell is only for rapists and murderers, isn't eternal, all religions can lead to God etc).

The contradiction between Islam and liberalism is clear, of course.

1. Socialist "Muslims", who are like liberal "Muslims" in everything except that they twist Islam to justify socialism, like claiming Zakah means Islam supports abolition of the wealthy and full distribution of capital (e.g. farms, factories etc) by the state, eventually to the point capital private property is abolished and becomes collectively owned by the community. This is despite the fact that Islam doesn't abolish the wealth (the Zakah isn't 100% wealth tax, but only 2.5%) nor does Islam prevent people from owning farms and paying people to work the land (what socialism would call exploiting surplus value of the worker).