Comments on: Liberal Islamophobia

By: thbt

thbt — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:55:44 +0000

“Could you expand this point…?” Sure. For starters, the early Wahhabis were pre-modern Hanbalites; to this day Najd, a place reknowned for its xenophobia, is still the home of Hanbalism and not “Wahhabis”. What the early Wahhabis were, in effect, Hanbalis who expressed outrage and dislike for popular religion and popular Sufism. But this criticism is hardly an invention of ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. There is a long tradition of criticising ‘innovation’ in religious practices (which is a severe sin in Islamic formulations of religious ethics), and Hanbalis have long viewed developments like certain forms of Sufism and kalam (loosely, ‘theology’) with suspicion. (Do not, however, draw a line between Sufism and ‘orthodox Islam’—many highly orthodox chracters enrolled onto Sufi orders, because Sufi ethics was seen as a way of improving ‘moral character’; and a great many Sufi orders are ‘orthodox’ in character, i.e. they follow a legal school and a school of theology. The first well-known Sufi, for example, was a Hanbali.) The last people to call themselves ‘Wahhabis’ were the Ikhwan of the first Saudi state, who were eventually disbanded because of their zealous acts of violence (especially the Taif massacre). Violence, despite popular (“Western”) opinion, was rejected by the early Muslim community—interested in preservation and unity—in opposition to the extremie religious idealism of the Kharijites. This tradition of political quietism is implicit in much political and legal thought of all Islamic schools. The fact that ibn `Abd al-Wahhab went looking for a ‘political’ leader in al-Saud, ought to show how he would have viewed the relationship between ‘religion’ and ‘state’. Despite ibn Saud creating for himself a kingdom and domain no where do we see a ‘political state’ in the writings of the Wahhabis. Their ideas of ‘state’ would have been firmly and squarely rooted in the Bedouin culture from which they came, and their subjects would not have viewed this any differently. We can glean the concerns of the early Wahhabis from simply reading a few texts as social historians, e.g. Kitab al-Tawhid, a exposition of `aqidah (creed) to be taught and learnt by memory; page after page is an criticism of various practices of popular Sufism. (`Aqidah literature is often a good place to start if you wish to chart the social history of Islam.) This lack of concern for the ‘political’ is in stark contrast to modern Salafisms (more on them below). On the Indian subcontinent, the word ‘Wahhabi’ is used as a pejorative in intra-sectarian polemics. Bralvis call Deobandis ‘Wahhabi’, while both will call the Ahl-e-Hadith ‘Wahhabis’ (these three form the majority of Sunnism on the subcontinent). The latter movements do overlap in certain places with Arabian Wahhabism, but have origins of their own and so deserve their own voice (note, my call for them to be ‘deserving of their own voice’ is not a moral judgment of their ideas as either “good” or “bad”). Again, one shold not be confused with popularised names and titles; well-known Indian “reformists”, some who set about “purifying” Islamic practices, were Sufis, who based their ideas on complex and intricate Sufi metaphysics. Salafisms are a broad modern movement, not to be confused with the pre-modern Hanbalites, and find their origins in a merging of anti-colonial Sufi activism, and the mutation and breakdown of Abduh’s rationalist, utilitarian theology. For example, Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, was a Sufi. Some modern Salafis endorse various aspects of ‘modernism’, mutatis mutandis (like the vote, parliament, legal rights from the state and a constitution); they have a well-constructed political ideology (again note, the description ‘well-constructed’ is not a moral approval, or otherwise, of their ideas). In this respects they must leave the pre-modern Hanbalis far behind. The modern Saudi state is a better described as a Salafi state (though it still uses classical Hanbali texts of law, since all law requires an interpretation); but many of the Saudi `ulema are still too conservative to be involved in “politics”, despite popular perceptions. They prefer to educate the masses in “Islamic virtues”. Though some Salafis view the Saudi government as the ideal Islamic government, others view them as hypocrites, and have formed political groups to this end. They either take up the call for democratisation in the ME, using the vote to gain popular sentiment, or meld with the peculiar brands who view their destiny to wage war on everyone and anyone, Muslim or not.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:16:22 +0000

“People should also be wary of quoting Wikipedia as an authority; it is mistaken in its description of “Wahhabism”.” You betcha I am wary. It was just a first quick survey, for myself as really not knowing the difference between fiqh and sunna and ijitahad.

By: mc

mc — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:47:21 +0000

samer, thanks for the apartment offer. I don’t quite see how moving to Cairo would turn me into a fundamentalist though, even if I’d meant that literally. But yeah, congrats for getting the point. Not. I’m not tired of “liberalism” whatever that is taken to mean, and it has been defined in very confusing ways in that post. For the record, I’m for the French secularist approach to all religions. I just don’t see how something like Islamic fundamentalism can be explained away purely in terms of hypotheses on cultural attitudes rather than real policies in which the west, supposedly engaged in a war against said fundamentalism, had a heavy hand.

By: yabonn

yabonn — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:53:25 +0000

Since no-one has proposed a practical way of introducing an Islamic Reformation I think france decided that it had enough crazed saudi-funded wahabbis preaching extremism (that’s what they are, apart of the doctrin). So projects of imam schools have been aired. Without any knowledge of these countries, i’d suppose you’d be able to find similar options in turkey or maybe maroc. Not really close to a Reformation, but inching in the right direction. Problem is saudi arabia has way more money to spend on these types of things.

By: q

Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:34:13 +0000

you have me interested… People should also be wary of quoting Wikipedia as an authority; it is mistaken in its description of “Wahhabism”. Could you expand this point…?

By: thbt

thbt — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:17:17 +0000

“There are former Muslims such as ibn Warraq who are interested in looking at the origins of Islam in a scholarly way.” It should be pointed out to anyone with an appreciation of scholarship and methodology that Ibn Warraq confuses historical and literary methods, often citing the product of both as proof of his argument; without ever realising that he is contradicting himself. People should also be wary of quoting Wikipedia as an authority; it is mistaken in its description of “Wahhabism”. Talk of “Reformation” also assumes that history always moves in certain directions; these are unwarranted assumptions.

By: tcb or tcb3

tcb or tcb3 — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:51:45 +0000

Since no-one has proposed a practical way of introducing an Islamic Reformation (not a Renaissance, because Classical influences in Mesopotamia actually took root after Mohammed – correct me if I’m wrong), a Pope, or any other imaginary institutions on the wish-list, let me just add that we atheists would like to see ALL religion denied … you know, while we’re dreaming and all.

@q: Quite, but why that particular dichotomy? Why should imperialism result in a religious backlash instead of a rational, secular one? @Bob McManus: Exactly. But it’s more complex than that. Intellectualism and anti-intellectualism can, and usually does, reside simultaneously in each person. Religious people are often good thinkers otherwise. On topic: No, cultural relativism is not especially liberal. It is common among liberal academics and theorists. But liberalism in the West in the past century or so has had fairly absolute views. You really have to, actually, because an absolute is almost the definition of a “goal.” PS>> Does anyone distinguish any longer between the evangelizing religions such as Christianity and Islam as opposed to (say) Judaism or Buddhism, which have no such official concept? I used to think the latter were more palatable; nowadays I’m not so sure.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:57:23 +0000

Humanism I guess it depends on how you define “anti-intellectualism”. Not simply thinking a lot or really hard on a single source, but searching for and accepting new sources of knowledge seems like a good idea to me.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:56:29 +0000

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:45:41 +0000

The “asceticism” comment was based on my impression that the Reformers (?) went for a radical simplicity and lack of ornamentation in church design, vestments, etc. I remembered Simon Schama discussing the “renovation” of the English Cathedrals. My impression is that the current Wahhabists also build stark and unornamented mosques, at least relatively to tradition.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:36:36 +0000

"Wahabbism looks a lot like Calvin to me."...certainly badly phrased Responding:I make no claim to a scholar's understanding of anything(I will stand by this), just casual impressions. My understanding of Islam is partially based on reading this: Mutazilite Mu'tazili theology developed on logic and rationalism from Greek philosophy, and sought to combine Islamic doctrines with the former, and show that they are inherently compatible. Asharite The Asharite school of early Muslim philosophy were instrumental in drastically changing the direction of Islamic philosophy, separating its development drastically from that of philosophy in the Christian world. It was founded by the theologian al-Ashari (d. 945) who gave it its name. "In contrast to the Mutazilite school of Greek-inspired philosophers, the Asharite view was that comprehension of unique nature and characteristics of God were beyond human capability. And that, while man had free will, he had no power to create anything. It was an ignorance-based view which did not assume that human reason could discern morality." This seemed to follow the Christian history, of Scholastics to Renaissance to Reformation. When I said "anti-intellectual", I meant that I doubted that Luther would accept an understanding of Aristotle to inform his Biblical interpretation, for example. My impression was that Wahabbism was a direct descendant or return to the Asharite school, but I apparently was ignorant. Wahabbism "Wahhabis consider Wahhabism to be the true form of Islam. They do not regard Shi'as as true Muslims, and are particularly hostile to Sufism, and to Ash'ari thought as well." Appears I need to do some further reading.

By: Samer

Samer — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:31:13 +0000

Reading that post almost made me want to become a Muslim fundamentalist myself Surely you can’t have been that “annoyed”? Oh, a joke, right? But, if you really want to join Al Qaradawi, be my (our) guest. It seems you’re bored with western “liberalism” and would like something more exotic (didn’t Edward Said write a book about that?). My cousin (in Egypt) will gladly switch places with you; he’s been trying for landed immigrant status in the U.S., Canada or the U.K. for nearly two years. He’s got a nice, if slightly crowded, apartment in a Cairo suburb and would give you a very reasonable price.

By: Mrs Tilton

Mrs Tilton — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:11:28 +0000

Bob McManus wrote: Strict textual interpretation, anti-intellectualism, asceticism, evangelism,intolerance. Wahabbism looks a lot like Calvin to me. And then Andrew Brown wrote: What on earth was anti-intellectual about Calvinism? Indeed, and one can also argue that evangelism is not particularly essential to Calvinism. There has been much evangelism from within the Calvinist tradition* to be sure, but is it driven by anything very 'Calvinist'? A hyper-Calvinist could take the position (and some have) that evangelism is pointless. I'd expect the evangelist impulse to be strongest in those denominations marked by Arminianism - Wesleyans, American Baptists and so on. * Today, of course, the phrase 'Calvinist tradition' begs the question that the tradition is in fact Calvinist. If one has had a certain sort of upbringing, 'tulip' may evoke more than a flower; and there are still some sternly predestined folk off in the wee glens. But the mainline presbyterian and reformed denominations have remained more faithful to Calvin's ideas about governance than to his doctrines. And as for asceticism: Calvin himself was not above enjoying a glass or two of wine. Intolerance I grant you, but then, that's hardly peculiar to Calvinism. (Vide, e.g., the Syllabus of Errors of the charming but not notably Calvinistic Giovanni Mastai-Ferretti, better known by his stage name, Pius IX.)

By: mc

mc — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:46:41 +0000

What q said. Honestly, no offence to the good intentions of the writers and all, but since we’re talking religion, you know that saying about good intentions… Reading that post almost made me want to become a Muslim fundamentalist myself, and I’m not even religious and not fundamentalist-inclined in anything so, not very likely at all, but that’s how much the arguments were annoying. It’s not enough to argue against patronising to avoid being patronising. The thing about the envy for superpower Israel as the cause of Islamism – and about the “respect” mentality as the cause of “violence in Afro-American culture” (oh god) – is pure ideological fluff you’d expect from Israeli nationalists and condescending “compassionate conservatives”. Also I think it’s a very debatable thing to put communities above individuals, and to equate religion with ethnic community identity. For all the Muslim brotherhood talk there’s still a lot of differences, and even animosity, between different nationalities of Muslims and I think the most useless as well as patronising thing is always to speak of Muslims as if they were one single-minded body, and what’s more, reduced to its fundamentalist aspect. Anthony Cox’s reply at least made more sense on that. I also don’t understand how Mulholland gets to define “liberalism” in such confusing terms. What’s liberal modernity? is he talking about a political concept or a general state of affairs? What’s the culture of wealth and celebrity got to do with, say, human rights principles and the notion of individual freedom? And why that “quite rightly” in “all this is, quite rightly, under constant pressure” when “all this” seems to refer to anything from “homosexuality” to consumerism? Is it not self-evident that sexuality should not be dictated by laws or social pressure? There’s a much simpler way to argue that Livingstone was not doing anything wrong and Howard was being a shrill opportunist as usual. Whatever Qaradawi is advocating and supporting is not half as shocking as the tabloids were making it, and not so dissimilar from what the Pope in Rome says (we don’t approve of gays, Palestinians are oppressed, war is wrong, we don’t approve of wife-beating but women don’t have the right to divorce – what’s the difference?) so I don’t see why shaking his hand should be that objectionable especially given the kind of really dictatorial-minded folks the British government has been shaking hands with in the past ten years. Anyone who can come up with a good reason why elevating Putin or Musharaf to world leader status is not worth the outrage that Livingstone got over meeting Qaradawi, please speak up now or remain silent. The only reform needed is a reform of the entire global policies of the west, but it’s too late for that or too complicated so it’s far easier – and therefore, pointless – to be discussing “oh what should WE do about this Islamic fundamentalism thing”. As if that extremism that includes terrorism had never ever been used and manipulated to suit those very policies that are supposed to be fighting it. Please.

By: Peter Murphy

Peter Murphy — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 05:59:15 +0000

Does Islam need a new Martin Luther? The author of “On the Jews and Their Lies” and “Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants”? For the love of God, no.