:: this was posted by thabet at 23:05

 

Some notes on 'Wahhabi' movement

It is a commonly held view that the modern Islamist resurgence is due to the "poisionous" and "infectious" ideology, or sect, known as "Wahhabism". Primarily, it is held, that Wahhabism is a reaction against modernity, and the "moral laxity" of the West. It is common to hear and read people express their disdain for "Wahhabi Islam", and launch diatribes against Ibn Abdul Wahab, Ibn Taymiyya, considered a precursor to the Nedji revivalist, and Sayyid Quttb, the infamous Islamist, and considered the "brains behind bin Laden". In addition, it is also common to hear that this movement initiated other puritanical movements in the Indian Subcontinent and in Africa.

An example of this view is professed by Zachary Latif, who says in his post "The Cry of a Shattered Crescent" writes:

"Would [the reaction of Muslims to the Western intellectual and political challange] be through a fierce retreat in to the Islamic past (as the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia, Deobandis of the Sub-continent and the Sanusis of Libya advocated) or would the answer lay in the complete rejection of Islamic thought and an adoption of the ethics of the secular West.”

However, even a cursory examination of history shows that the movement referred to as the "Wahhabi" movement had little to do with the perceived excesses of the Occident and their encorachment upon the Muslim world. It in fact arose as a consequence of the moral degenration of the Muslim socities, and primarily in response to the degrading and mind-numbing effects of 'popular religion', of intercessions of Prophets and saints, saint-worship, the power of holy men, occultism and, to some extent, Taqleed. [1]

It's doctrines are attributed to the works of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the 18th century revivalist. [2] However, apart from sectarian polemics, there is little to suggest that Ibn Abdul Wahhab had any interest in actually forming a new sect or ideology. In fact, it seems that his interest was in attacking popular religion and its corrosive affects, and reviving the 'pure' Islam of the earlier generations, which according to him had become degraded. This is evidenced by an examination of his most widely read work, Kitaab al-Tawhid (The Book of [the] Unicity [of God]). This work if read, not as an ahistorical theological work, but as a social document, it clearly shows that the primary concern was an attempt to refutate the whole construct of popular Sufism. [3]

Further examination of that period shows much the same. John Lewis (or Johan Ludwig) Buckhardt was a 19th century Swiss German explorer, who travelled across the Arabian peninsula. His is one of the earliest accounts of the Wahhabi movement; though by the time he wrote, the Sa'udis, the patrons of Ibn Abdul Wahhab's doctrines, had been swept away from the Hijaaz by the governer of Egypt, Muhammad Ali. Buckhardt writes:

"The Wahabys call themselves by no other name but Moslims... distinghuising thus between themselves and the mere Turks." [4]

Buckhardt's accounts are quite interesting, and reveal that the enemies of Saud, as well as of Ibn Abdul Wahhab, shaped the way his movement was perceived (putting aside the "right" or "wrong" of his doctrines). Below I'll quote a few more passges from the second volume of his work, Notes on the Bedouins and the Wahabys.

"The doctrines of [Ibn] Abd el Wahab were not those of a new religion; his efforts were directed only to reform abuses in the followers of Islam, and to disemminate the pure faith among Bedouins... [Ibn Abdul Wahhab] was misundestood by both his friends and his enemies. The latter hearing of a new sect, which accused the Turks of heresy, and held their prophet, Mohammed, in much less veneration than they did, were easily persuaded that a new creed was professed, and the Wahabys were consequently not merely heretics, but kafirs, or infidels... The Sherif of Mekka, who had always been a determined enemy of the growing Wahaby power, had an interest in widening the breach between the new sectaries and the Turkish empire, and therefore artfully and unremittingly spread reports of the Wahabys being really infidels, in order to render abortive all attempts at negotiation with them." [Emphasis mine]

The following observation is particularly enlightening; especially for those who think the Ottoman Empire was the sort of entity Muslims should be working to restore, and that its loss is something we should be unhappy about:

[T]he abstaining from whatever might inebriate, unlawful commerce with women, practices contrary to nature, and various others, were so many percepts not only entirely disregarded by the modern Turks, but openly violated with impunity. The scandolous conduct of many hadjys [sic] who polluted the sacred cities with their infamous lusts; the open license which the cheifs of the caravans gave to debauchery, and all the vices which follow in the train if pride and selfishness; the numerous acts of treachery and fraud perpretrated by the Turks, were all held by the Wahabys as specimens of the general character of unreformed Muselmans..."

Further, he adds:

"Not a single new precept was to be found in the Wahaby code [and] the only difference between [Ibn Abdul Wahab's doctrines] and [those of the] orthodox Turks... is that the Wahabys rigidly follow the same laws which other neglect, or have ceased altogether to observe. To describe, therefore, the Wahaby religion, would be to [...] show in what points this sect [sic] differs from the Turks [in that] a list of all the abuses of which the latter are guilty [would be produced]." [5] [Emphasis mine]

He follows up the above summary by stating the following, which I found most interesting:

"I am strongly warranted in giving this statement, by opinion of several of the first olemas [sic] of Cairo. In the autumn of 1815, two envoys were sent to that city by the Wahaby cheif, one of whom was a perfect Wahaby scholar. Mohammad Ali Pasha wished them to give an explanation of their tenents to the principal learned men of Cairo... [T]he Wahaby had invariably the best of the contriversy, because he proved every proposition by a sentence of the Koran, and the Hadyth [sic], or Tradition... The olemas [sic] declared that they could find no heresy in the Wahabys; and as this was a decleration made in spite of themsevles, it is the less to be suspected. A book had also been received at Cairo, containing various treatsies on religious subjects, written by [Ibn] Abd el Wahab himself: it was read by many olemas [sic] , and they declared unanimously, that if such were the opinions of the Wahabys, they themselves belonged altogether to that creed." [Emphasis mine]

It should be noted that Buckhardt's accounts are marred by a bias; not for the "Wahabys", but for the Bedouins, for whom he had developed a warmth and a respect, irrespective of the view that he considered them more primitive than himself.

I believe the above if enough, for now, to at least question the popular myth that Wahhabism in its inception, developed as a reaction to the liberalism of the West, and its encorachment upon Dar al-Islam, or that it was even concerned with Western influences (that later this movement, which actually died or merged with others, did take up the challange of the West is not the same issue, of course). Further, I hope to have shown that from a historical point of view (i.e. I am ignoring the rights and wrongs of Ibn Abdul Wahhab doctrines - which are not of concern to me here), Wahhabism was a movement aimed at 'purifiying' the edifice of Islam from 'un-Islamic' practices.

To some extent Wahhabism, though often linked with efforts to remove the authority of our Orthodox Schools of jurisprudence, was in fact an affirmation of the orthodoxy; that they affirmed they were Hanbalites [6] is evidence of that. It was simply a natural response to the degenration of a religion which had not developed a method of reviving itself or reforming itself, and whose guardians wished to preserve the medieval heritage. It was probably the violence which was employed by the Wahhabis in their political activities, which was the real bone of contention. The zeal with which they destroyed the decorative features of mosques, flattened tombs and graves, even lauching an attack on the mosque of the Prophet (p), caused alarm among the orthodox ulema, who since early times were primarily concerned with keeping the equilibrium (note their rejection of the extremely violent Kharijite movement).

The irony of history is that this wave of puritanism, aimed at straining Islam of its popular, and often rather degrading, practices and beliefs by demanding the right to at least look again at the primary sources ('Ijtihaad'), has sparked the call for a fresh look at the understanding of our religion, ethics, morals, law, theology and history, and thus enabling Muslims to define their own modernity.

Notes
[1] Taqleed means, in Islamic legal parlance, "covering with authority" and refers to the notion of adhereing solely to a particular juristic school. In particular it applies to the adherence of one of the Four Schools of Classical Islam, which according to Classical Sunnism, a Muslim must follow, with no deviation.

[2] There is always much talk of "reformation" of Islam, but without due consideration to what a "reform" means, or indeed which "Islam" we are talking of. "Revivalism" is probably a more accurate term for most of these movements. This is not something new, however. But that is a another topic on its own.

[3] I am in the middle of trying to collect some more information from primary sources regarding this period. Primarily, I am interested in the historical aspects of how this movement saw itself. This post is brief introduction, based mainly on English sources.

[4] John Lewis Buckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahabys, London: Garnet Publishing Ltd., 1992, Volume 2.

[5] It must be noted that though Buckhardt uses the word 'sect', he shows that by this he means 'school of thought' or 'interpretation'. This is evidenced by his use of the word 'sect' to describe the Maliki school of Classical Sunnism (see Ibid., p. 115, Volume 2.).

[6] Fazlur Rahman, Islam, 2nd Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. The actual development of movements, which rejected the orthodox schools of jurisprudence and insisted on direct readings of the Prophetic Traditions, took place on the Indian Subcontinent. They are often erroneously called 'Wahhabis', but that is for another post.