Reflections on Salafism's rise and fall
Umar Lee recently posted a ten-part history on the rise and fall of the "salafi da'wah" in the USA (last post, with comments and links to the other nine, here). The whole series made me thoroughly glad that I was guided away from it (alhamdu lillah); although I was aware that "salafis" were fighting amongst themselves and that attacks were being posted on various "salafi" websites, such as the infamous Salafi Publications and TROID (who are blamed, to a large extent, for causing the acrimonious schism which took place around the turn of this century), I did not realise how bitter it was and how much social dislocation it caused.
The last post in the series is certainly among the most commented-on articles in the history of the Muslim blogosphere; other comments from Tariq Nelson, Ginny Quick, Kashif, Jinnzaman and Austrolabe, with an interesting perspective from Jinnzaman: that the persuasive effects of traditional Islamic websites and web forum contributions were important in reducing "salafi" influence.
I have a few comments of my own to make, which are too long to make at Umar's own blog.
First, the circumstances of the "Qutubi Inquisition", as the Salafi Publications gang called it, seem to have been forgotten. The historical context was the 1990s, the decade after the disastrous first Gulf War, in which many Muslims, particularly youth, were outraged at the Saudi government for allowing the American troops into the Arabian peninsula. This provided more than fertile ground for takfeeris who insisted that such actions could only be those of kuffaar and not Muslims. It was the decade during which Islamist political movements and extremist preachers flourished until the 9/11 attacks made them an embarrassment. Despite the upheavals they caused with their inquisition, the position of the pro-Saudi "super salafis" on this issue was the correct one, in line with the traditional Islamic position that sins alone, unless they reflect disdain for the deen, do not take someone out of the fold of Islam.
Second, it is arguable that the Saudis and others in the Gulf who financed the "salafi" book industry in the West could have alleviated the social problems Umar blames for the social breakdown of the Inquisition by assisting the community with its other needs. To quote a few paragraphs from chapter eight of his history:
Many entered the deen wounded by society and were at the bottom of the barrel. It was our belief that our demons could be exorcised by the memorization of the fatawa of scholars and by simply mimicking the ways of the scholars and running around and talking and acting as if we were not still dealing with the issues in our lives that pre-dated Islam when in fact we were dealing with these issues on a daily basis, but were afraid to speak about them to our fellow Muslims. This is one of the main places we went wrong.
Although more of our issues were spoken on at that time – especially as opposed to now – nonetheless, there were no fatawa that told us how to deal with an indifferent mother on drugs, chemical addictions that many around me had, or being able to find a job as a convicted felon.
When the ideological schisms happened, it revived many of the inner demons that were never fully exorcized in many. This left many brothers to attend lectures, and then after isha hit the streets and make money the only way that they knew how. This created a criminal underclass within the Salafi movement that paid lots of lip-service to the deen but in reality had lots of underlying problems. What led us to the streets has been put in our minds in our childhoods living through the harsh realities of urban life in America.
Could money to start businesses and get training have assisted the community in overcoming these issues? It's possible, but it's equally possible that companies would have ceased operating due to the management or directors falling out and workers resigning en masse. Still, one suspects that those who financed the "salafi" book industry were more interested in undermining mainstream Islam than building a strong indigenous "salafi" community - or even any strong indigenous Muslim community - in the West.
Third, an important legacy of the movement which I have seen first-hand in the UK is that some people hold "salafi" positions without realising what they are. Specifically, people object to the Ash'ari school of 'aqida, to Sufism and to the following of madhhabs, particularly among the Somalis. I have had marriage discussions break down on three occasions, each involving Somali women who did not identify themselves as belonging to this movement. There is certainly a tendency towards a "unified Islam" which is simply "salafism" without the name and perhaps the "attitude", but which still satisfies all but the most extreme "salafis".
Fourth, I object very strongly to the persistent attempts to sound, to quote the Victorian poet Robert Browning, "the exhausted air-bell" of "salafi" identity politics - that is to say that people should not call them Wahhabis. A recent example was Yasir Qadhi's video rebuttal of the Channel 4 documentary showing leading "salafi" preachers in the UK making offensive remarks; he said that Wahhabi is a "fabricated" group and that nobody says they belong to it. Whether or not the sect has ever identified itself as such, it is the only accurate label for them as it is the convention in Islam to name groups after their founder or after its most prominent characteristic or proponent. In the case of Wahhabism, it is called that because it traces back to Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhab. Muslims outside the sect object to the term "salafi" being used to describe them, because the salafis, historically, were the salaf themselves, not a group claiming to follow their example.
In the case of the "salafis" of today, the fact is that they do not follow the example of the salaf, but rather a set of teachings handed down from a small fringe group of the Hanbali school. Splits and feuds within it are inevitable, because a group distinguished by rigid piety wedded to a royal family with a terrible history of corruption and oppression cannot be stable. The ferocity of the schism in America may have had much to do with personality politics and envy, but its roots lay in the Gulf war and the fact that the Saudis had got so fat on oil revenues that their rulers had no confidence in their ability to drive out the Iraqis and resorted to getting American help.
Finally, "salafism" took hold as easily as it did simply because the alternatives were not there to serve the needs of the new converts. Even in the UK, where traditional Islam is strong due to the large Indo-Pak diaspora community, it could not stop the spread of "salafism" among either the converts or the Somali community. I believe that the over-use of Urdu has much to do with this: the Friday lecture in some Indo-Pak mosques is delivered in a foreign language which the converts (and many non-Indian immigrants, like Somalis) do not speak, and have no reason to learn. Of course, there are racism issues in the Indo-Pak community in the UK (and probably among Muslim immigrants to the USA) which may well motivate converts, particularly black converts, to seek the company of their "own kind" after converting, which of course leads them into the clutches of the predominantly black "salafi" communities.
Not all Black converts are "salafis", however; they are represented in most of the Sufi tariqa groups operating in London, for example, but with a couple of exceptions (the groups that follow Shaikh Nazim and Shaikh Asif H. Farooqui in Manchester), none of the groups have a markaz in London (although many are attached to certain mosques, such as those in Ilford and Cricklewood). Of course, the da'wah to Islam given by the "salafis" has been much a word-of-mouth affair as it has been about store-fronts and da'wah tables in the streets, although certainly they have played a part; it's fairly well-known that the Tablighi Jama'at does not concern itself with giving da'wah to non-Muslims, but it is debatable whether they are really equipped to give it.
I might also add that it is perfectly possible for traditionalist Muslims to be intolerant, rigid or cult-like in their attitudes and practices. Some of those from the Indian subcontinent are well-known for their rigidity on the beard, for example, refusing to accept that schools of thought other than their own (the Hanafi) do not require a fist-length beard. (I am mostly, but not exclusively, talking about the youth here.) The antics of the "Habashi" group in Lebanon and among the Lebanese diaspora are notorious, and the Murabitun do not have an enviable reputation either. While "salafism" may be accused of feeding off a sense of victimhood among Black converts, I have noticed that many middle-class white converts, many of them with a history in the Murabitun (but not all), display a sense of superiority over immigrant Muslims even though their personal observance of Shari'a may be rather more lax than theirs.
Traditional Islam distinguishes itself, not only among sects of Islam but among all religions, for its ability to accommodate minor differences of opinion without loss of decorum and without Muslims anathematising each other. The opposite tendency among "salafis" was known of well before the Inquisition (Abdul Hakim Murad uses as an example the "vituperative" tone of the Saudi writer, al-Tuwayjiri, to Nasir al-Albani regarding the status of the niqaab in this footnote to Understanding the Four Madhhabs). Traditional Muslims themselves have not been immune from acrimonious divisions (the ongoing Bareilawi-Deobandi divide, which has existed for about a century and still exists, being a case in point), but they can be best avoided if people are aware of, remember and practise the Islamic etiquettes of disagreement.
Comments
After having read Umar Lee's blog, it only confirms what I have alhmadulilah learned a while ago. And that is, if people attach themsleves to personalilties, or groups, rather than the pure principles of this religion, based on the Quran & Sunnah, you will always fail. Instead of blaming people's own failings when faced with a fitna, they blame those who they learned from, or whom they identify with. SO they look for an 'alternative islam' and deem their old understanding as wrong or misguided, instead of going back to the Quran and Sunnah to check and re-check what they should be doing... unless they learn this, they will only do the same thing again with a different teacher, group and 'flavour' of Islam...
Umar's blog is being mis-used by opporunistic non-salafis to promote their own groups, be it Sufi, or Ash'ari or traditionalist or whatever is in fashion this decade. What Umar describes also happens in non-Salafi groups.
With regards to the identification of Salafis with the term 'Wahabi', then we all know that this term is used as a derogatory way against salafis, and this is what makes Muslims of other paths use it so much, such as when the Sufis of the UK join the public lynching of their fellow Muslims, because they are Salafis.
Unlike the Sufi's, who take great pride (and often arrogance) in attributing themselves to names and personalities, Salafis have refused to do this. Maybe this is an example to be followed by the non-Salafis...
Posted by: Abu Abdillah | February 4, 2007 6:47 PM
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
I know of no genuine Sufi shaikh or traditional scholar who has taken part in the "public lynching" of "salafis" in the UK. Rather, those involved are self-promoters who were nobodies until the media witch hunts began. Even Abdul-Hakim Murad, who was interviewed for Dispatches, most likely did not know what he was taking part in and no doubt had his words cut up like everyone else who was featured in that programme.
Posted by: Yusuf Smith
|
February 4, 2007 6:58 PM
as-salaam alaykum,
I have a comment on what you wrote here:
Despite the upheavals they caused with their inquisition, the position of the pro-Saudi "super salafis" on this issue was the correct one, in line with the traditional Islamic position that sins alone, unless they reflect disdain for the deen, do not take someone out of the fold of Islam.
While it is true that this is the correct position, the fact is that many of those that were targets of the inquisition held the exact same position. Any fair observer would say that the SP/TROID inquisition became a complete witch hunt in which small statements were taken out of context and given the worse possible interpretation and spread all over the internet. By the time a person got a chance to respond, his name was mud. They couldn't be reasoned with. They couldn't be bargained with and they felt no pity for their victims and the carnage they were causing. They were unrelenting.
The only people I know in the West that hold such an extreme position are the nutty Tibyaan and Muhajiroun types - both of which are in the UK. Neither of those movements have a major following in the US - Thank God for that.
Here in the US, we just did not have any major group that made its hallmark takfeer as with the Tibyaan types. Now problems with tabdee (declaring to be an innovator) was another issue. But not Takfeer.
This is not to say that there were not random brothers doing this, or even some nutters like the very small fringe group in New York "The Thinkers Society" but I am talking on an major level.
Posted by: Tariq Nelson | February 4, 2007 7:02 PM
Assalamu alaikum, I've re-edited my article regarding this subject, and Inshallah, have gotten the paragraphs outlined properly, and corrected some spelling errors.
Posted by: Ginny Quick
|
February 4, 2007 8:08 PM
assalamu alikeum
Speaking from a somali perspective, when you talk about the spread of 'salafism' in the somali community, i think its only a minority of U.K somalis (mainly london and b'ham) who have adopted this. Somalis by and large are from Shafi madhab and in somalia, alot of the secterian issues that are found in the U.K, dont have much hold in somalia or within somalis in north america. There's alot of sufis in somalia (and outside) and many who wouldnt call themselves sufi, partake in religious activties might be deemed 'sufi' like tawsawaf. We also have tabligah jammat and all get along fine. You would be hard pressed to find anyone in somalia scremaing out 'deviant' to TJ or Sufis like they do here in the U.K (The TJ's in particular are loved by everyone- even though many are not TJ's themselves). Anyhow, i see what you mean and it has seeped into some somali british youth (esp. sisters). They have no clue as to what they're waffling on about in matters of fiqh, aqeedah etc and just taking notes from what they've read on islam Q&A or heard from some speaker at a lecture. I've seen a few sisters who adapted to that mentality and married so called 'salafi' brothers who were appreantly on the haqq. No suprises that they're divorced now.
What do you mean by this though (more specfically, the [] section):
"[Even in the UK, where traditional Islam is strong due to the large Indo-Pak diaspora community], it could not stop the spread of "salafism" among either the converts or the Somali community."
Posted by: muslim_gal
|
February 4, 2007 11:17 PM
It is embarrassing, almost shameful for your opportunism in taking shots at the salafi dawah, based on internal conflicts around personalities, something that is duplicated among Sufis in different forms throughout the ages, whether you admit it or not. And to make it as some form of judgment upon the Salafis based on one man's historical perspective (who by the way, continues to adhere to the resilient manhaj). We are just cleaning house a bit walhamdulilah. And I think you guys need some extremists cleaning up to do as well, starting with none other than Abdal Hakim Murad, who was part of the Channel 4 hit-job. Until he himself comes out and clarifies that he was duped into giving that interview, we'll go by his track-record, which includes several vitriolic articles on the so-called "wahhabis".
I have already dealt with this "Wahhabi" bogeyman or since you have jumped on Umar's series, perhaps you would take this from him as well. You are welcome to take some pointers from both, though I doubt that you will. It contains a few references for Abdal-Hakim's past attacks, including his support of Kabbani's positions.
Wallahu Musta'an.
Musings of a Muslim Mind
Posted by: Amad | February 5, 2007 2:37 AM
When and where these "public lynchings of their fellow muslims in the UK?" Why were there no reports in the press? Are the police investigating? If no, why not?
Posted by: Thersites | February 5, 2007 8:26 AM
When and where these "public lynchings of their fellow muslims in the UK?" Why were there no reports in the press? Are the police investigating? If no, why not?
Wow that was lame.
Posted by: Shamil | February 5, 2007 1:54 PM
Thersite,
Are you serious? By lynching he means character assasination. Dont be stooopid.
Posted by: bikhair aka taqiyyah | February 5, 2007 2:10 PM
Muslim_gal,
As a Somali-Sijui, I agree with all that you say, we Sijuis also love TJs, and I have come across a few wandering Somali Sufis in my life although they were always from Somalia, rather than East Africa. But you perhaps haven't met the 'Ikhwans'? or don't you have them in Somalia proper? To say they are judgmental is an understatement, but even they are a recent phenomenon.
The real Salafis are those who are upon the Holy Qur'an and Rasul Allah's Sunnah, not the heartless ones obssessed with appearances and punishment.
A while back, I got talking about marriage with a brother from Kuwait, he had a long beard and wore thobes. He started by sending me all these links to websites I had never heard of before like TROID and others whose names I forget. I was supposed to sell my home in the U.K and move to Kuwait, which I was fine with in principle, but once there, I was supposed to always wear a niqab and never leave the house, never work -which i wasn't ok with. I'm a person with 3 degrees, supposed to be highly-skilled and used to a structured life, how was I going to spend my time? so I asked if I could work from home for his business but the brother thought I was crazy to even ask that question!
Posted by: Saggal | February 5, 2007 2:31 PM
"...particularly among the Somalis. I have had marriage discussions break down on three occasions, each involving Somali women who did not identify themselves as belonging to this movement"
Yusuf,
You are right, a number of Somalis here in the U.K hold that position without realising it, this might sound like nonsense to some of you but it really is true, I personally know people who are like that, people who've never heard of Imam Shafi. The reason is that they attend "salafi" madrassa's where madhhabs are discouraged.
Having said that, I am not sure what Asha'ri Aqeeda is myself and would probably want to consult an imam if a brother I wanted to marry said he was of Ashari Aqeeda. Sorry if I come across as ignorant. I probably am.
Posted by: Saggal | February 5, 2007 2:49 PM
There is quite a big difference between saying people are wahabi because you think they have wahabist tendencies or just don't agree with their interpretation of the quran and a public lynching. A public lynching leaves dead people, which is an important difference too.
Posted by: Thersites | February 5, 2007 4:05 PM
assalamu alikeum
Saggal,
I havent met Ikwaans to my knowlegde in somalia or U.K (or maybe i did and wasnt aware). I'm unfamilar with these a million and one labels and groups lol. I've only really come into contact with TJ's and Sufis in somalia, mainly TJ's though. A few of my male relatives are TJ's and some of my uncles went on travelling with them. I've always being fascinated with their 40 days/nights travel and was impressed by the love and warmth that they recieved in somalia. You'd see people on the buses, streets, in cars just call out to them and wave and they'd say their salams back as they walked along, carrying their few wordly possesions as they went off to spread the deen. I'd love to travel with them one day, just for the expreince if anything.
[The real Salafis are those who are upon the Holy Qur'an and Rasul Allah's Sunnah, not the heartless ones obssessed with appearances and punishment.]
Agreed! Although those that you describe would say that they are the only ones fully on the quran and sunnah.
You had a lucky escape with that brother from Kuwait. Guys like him want nothing more then a muslimh barbie! (aka brain void, passive and only there to submit 100% to his physical needs!)
Yusuf: I'd like to know what Asha'ri Aqeeda is too. Im with Saggal, never heard of it either.
Posted by: muslim_gal
|
February 5, 2007 6:58 PM
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
I'm not really qualified to explain the Ash'ari aqeeda, but it is one of the two schools of thought in doctrine (the other being the Maturidi, which differs in a few minor matters) to which Muslims who follow classical scholarship belong. Generally, the Maturidi school coincided with the Hanafi school of fiqh, with the Ash'ari being followed by those who were Maliki or Shafi'i. However, they are nearly identical.
Imam Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari is best known for his work in rebutting the Mu'tazila, who were various groups of heretics in the Abbasid period. He himself adopted a position of "tafweedh", that is, "consigning to Allah" the knowledge of what is meant by certain ayaat of the Qur'an known as mutashabbihaat. These verses refer to "body parts" such as the "hands" and "shin" of Allah ta'ala; of course, Allah ta'ala cannot be a body with physical limits, which taking these phrases literally would entail.
So, the original Ash'aris (or Ashaa'ira) took the position of tafweedh. Later Ash'aris moved towards ta'weel, which is to suggest figurative interpretations within the bounds of classical Arabic. There are actually many such images in classical Arabic; as Shaikh Nuh Keller noted, it is unimaginable that a language as rich as classical Arabic would lack "this basic expressive faculty".
Ibn Taymiyya rejected the notion that there are figurative interpretations in the Qur'an, and the modern-day "salafis" follow him in this.
Shaikh Nuh Keller gave the definitive rebuttals of anti-Ash'ari agitation in English. See the following articles:
Also, see the entire Shaikh Nuh section on br. Mas'ud Khan's webpage.
Posted by: Yusuf Smith
|
February 5, 2007 9:15 PM
Salam alaikum,
"Traditional Islam distinguishes itself, not only among sects of Islam but among all religions, for its ability to accommodate minor differences of opinion without loss of decorum and without Muslims anathematising each other."
A recent schism on a well-loved online Muslim forum which caused the owner to suspend all commenting proves that this is not the case.
Rather, Umar's article is a warning for all of us. You never know when the good times will end and what will bring us down.
WS
Posted by: Tim | February 5, 2007 10:42 PM
Salaam 'Alaikum
I just find it interesting that so many commenting on so many diff. blogs have used the opportunity of a series that largely critiqued the followers of a particular minhaj to do the same old tired attacks of the so-called "Sufis." My take on UL's posts were that they called for self-reflection on the part of people who proclaim so loudly to be followers of the "Salafi Da'wah," not yet another opportunity for the same old verbal beatings of the so-called "Sufis." Surely, there is more to the SD than that... ?
Posted by: UmmZaid | February 6, 2007 5:28 PM
Salaam 'Alaikum
I would also add that what occurred on that forum (the one Tim refers to above) only shows that human beings, regardless of what title they choose for themselves, can easily fall prey to such diseases as namima, gheeba, kibr, argumentation, bickering, and anything else that starts with the waswasa. And I don't know a single "traditionalist," including those involved in said discussion, who would have claimed to be immune to waswasa. The only sorrow is that people forgot themselves and their adab.
Posted by: UmmZaid | February 6, 2007 5:31 PM
Salaama Alaikum,
I would just like to say subahanallah to the remarks people are making...If we are all claiming we are upon the quran and sunnah, why are we arguing and blindly insulting eathother? it is beyond belief..but when people just go by hear'say thats the knowledge of our ummah today. Lack of knowledge, and to my knowledge all the speakers and scholars who follow the way of the salaf explain all the teachings of the 4 imams. As for somali people following this path i see it as a step forward, may allah (swt) guide us all to the right path, just remember following imam shafi'i (rahimuallah) is not exactly the sunnah is it? the sunnah means follow the way of the prophet (saw).
Ws
Posted by: Hiba | April 15, 2008 10:42 PM