This is the first in a special series of guest posts by Sindbad of Islamophobia Watcher. Sindbad will be analysing the 2004 Nixon Center’s report, Understanding Sufism and its Potential Role in US Policy [pdf].
Note: This piece has NOTHING to do with the experience of Sufis or Sufism, and so I’ve put the word ‘Sufism’ in single inverted commas. I understand the Sufi Muslim Council as a lobbying group more than money-grubbing, money of course is guaranteed though I feel there‘s a real ideological filament burning somewhere.
I shall break this piece into several structures, because it’ll be easier for you to understand and for me to write. I’ll first begin on a corrective note to humanize the dehumanized in this report i.e. the Salafis. I want to firmly state that ‘Wahhabism’ is a corruption of the term ‘Salafism’. There are many who argue (like Shaykh Kabbani) that ‘Wahabbism’ is an appropriate term, but it must be really a joke like the one about ‘Mohammedanism’ a more appropriate term for Islam from an antagonistic non-Muslim perspective?
Another issue that I must raise is the distinction between Wahhabis and Salafis. There is no such term as Salafi in Islam. This term can only be applied for the first three centuries of Islam, called a-Salafu-saleh.
Let’s all call our opponents names to ridicule them and we’ll all get together swell. But nobody call us names. We are sacred. We are right. You and yours are wrong. We decide for you but you aren’t allowed to decide for us. The truth is that everybody has the right to decide for themselves what they ought to be called. If the Salafis say they are Salafis and ’Wahabbism’ is a denigrating term, I support them because they have a right like everybody else. If we should indeed abide by demands of condition, I doubt Shaykh Kabbani would be a Sufi in one sense of the word as he doesn’t wear wool.
I’ll take up half the speakers in this part and half in the second part. In the third part insha’Allah I’ll discuss this report in its advancement of foreign policy.
Shaykh Kabbani on ‘Wahhabism’
Shaykh Hisham Kabbani’s two odd quotations from Rumi and Ibn Arabi (on Hellenized binary philosophy of what is and what is not), who were basically poets and philosophers, sets the tone for this report. On close reading you’ll find that what is actually referred to as ‘Wahhabism’ by the various speakers is really Islam, which they pit against a spiritual organ of Islam. Some of their critique of fundamentalism is justified but the problem arises when they resort to smearing an entire group of people. Shaykh Kabbani even says:
…are we as Americans going to support the Sufis, or work with the Wahhabis? If we do the latter, we run the risk that we work with terrorists, whereas there is no such risk with Sufis. It is very simple: the United States must reach out to non-Wahhabi Muslims if it wants to succeed in this battle. It’s a no-lose proposition!
To garner political power, to the aims of which Western governments will be more than obliging, Shaykh Kabbani forgets some very spiritual notions of Islam, the sorts which are really intrinsically moral. By quoting European Orientalists, backing the tyrannical government of China against the so-called Wahhabis, backing the murderous government of Uzbekistan which shoves Muslim dissidents who don’t necessarily agree with Shaykh Kabbani’s version of Islam in scalding water and planning American foreign policy against those damn ‘Wahhabis’ or any Muslim who doesn‘t follow ‘Sufism‘, Shaykh Kabbani resembles a pontificating priest of the Crusade era.
Bernard Lewis on ‘Wahhabism’
Lewis’s take on the subject is even worse. After bugging us with his usual daft perspective on language and Muslim inability and all, Lewis pours all his rage on Islam. I pointed out in the beginning how Salafism is being used merely as a label to bash Islam on many counts and nobody does it better than Bernard Lewis:
Wahhabism is about as central in Islam, about as relevant to what you might call the major Islamic traditions, as the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity. The enormous difference in impact between the two groups is due to a confluence of circumstances which happily did not take place in the Christian world: the conversion of the house of Saud and local tribal shaykhs to the Wahhabi doctrine in the 18th century, the establishment of the Saudi Kingdom in the 1920’s which included Mecca and Medina, and, worst of all, the discovery of oil.
Too bad for Lewis that Muslims got rich with oil and too bad for Muslims that Lewis provided great intellectual hubris for the taking of much of that oil with death and destruction and all in Iraq. I am going to be tight-lipped for the rest of this piece on Lewis’s comparison of Salafism to the Ku Klux Klan, which is undoubtedly a foolish libellous comparison and Lewis is a dangerous kind of fool.
As to my argument that Lewis is more so referring to Islam, we need to listen to his ardent praise for Ibn Arabi and Rumi for ‘not just tolerance’ but also ‘acceptance‘. Lewis plays this against ‘standard Islamic texts’ i.e. the Qur’an and the Hadith? What Shaykh Hisham Kabbani has quoted is basically what Orientalists like Lewis want to hear. How is Lewis to know of Rumi writing that he was the dust at the feet of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)? How is Lewis to know that the Qur’an is the most accepting and honest of all men and their words, because it is the Word? It is Allah’s words. It isn’t the words of a poet or a philosopher. There is more kindness and compassion in the Qur’an than in the hearts of infinite Rumis and Ibn Arabis and all the things in the earth, who are mortals who come and go, say and regret? They wouldn’t have the ability to say or write anything if it weren’t for Allah. But Lewis won’t know anything. Neither will Shaykh Hisham Kabbani in his conquistador armour as he mumbles poetry to prove his so-called tolerance but not for others of other sects or even mainstream Islam itself, at the point of a gun of the US administration he evokes, rather than God and what is essentially good and will benefit the wider community or the main body of Muslims.
28 comments ↓
Wahhabism is the world’s bogey-man, for non-Muslims and even many Muslims…
Here is some supporting evidence for the author’s viewpoint:The Wahhabi Myth: Debunking the Bogeyman
Maybe it’s just me….but the post lacks originality.
Gess, I bid you to wait for the second installment. I originally wrote this for my blog without much passion
.
Salaams,
In response to the second comment, I’ll be happy if anyone can cite links to inter-texts on this subject. I have solely relied on the Nixon Report which I wanted to critique. I did touch upon the poetry and philosophy of Rumi and Ibn Arabi but this was in response to Bernard Lewis’s obvious extolment of the tolerance in the writings of such aesthetic, spiritually sensitive Muslim thinkers which he played against ‘standard Islamic texts’. This repitition (as you’ll find in the report) on the lack of tolerance in mainstream Islam coupled with what I consider slanderous libel against another group of followers was the most intimidating aspect.
I think you made some good points. The dichotomy between Shaykh Kabbani’s sufism and Wahabiism is a false one and ignores the many sufis who sit in between both extremes.
[...] Most people with at least some superficial knowledge of Islam tend to associate ‘Sufism’ with ‘good Islam’ (think the poet Rumi) and ‘Wahhabism’ with ‘bad Islam’ (think stoning in Saudi Arabia). Guest blogger Sinbad at Austrolabe reminds us that reality is more complex in this first post of a series on some of the political jockeying that goes on between Muslim lobbies in the US and how it leads to such perceptions, though he does so by putting ‘Wahhabism’ in context rather than by putting down Sufism. [...]
one caution: I don’t want to see muslims dehumanized and killed, but it’s a little ingracious to say “salafis are being called wahhabis and that’s wrong” adding that “all these arguments come from orientalist and western attacks on Islam,” and then turn around and blame “sufism, the orientalist/western tool” by using Kabbani as an example. That’s about as fair as pointing out the numberous times that the Saud family has co-operated with the West over the last two centuries and saying that this disqualifies anything salafis say, or the way in which salafis who argue in the west about sufis always are quoting orientalist/western sources as their “authorities” on sufism.
equally with condemning the channel 4 documentary, don’t you think that recognizing why many muslims in the west, the great majority of which either recognize tassawuf as a legitimate teaching or at the very least consider it within Islam, you might avoid mischaracterizing Kabbani as representative of sufism or whatever…
for clarification, baybers didn’t argue the points i mention above, but certainly the link Amad posted uses the same broad-brush assault, and ignores the historical links between the Saudi-Salafi family and the west, and the truth that oil money has been funding their school.
Finally, on the “wahabbiyyah” – since Allah’s name is “al-Wahhab,” I also think it’s offensive to connote that to a group, or to define “salafis” other than they wish to describe themselves. I will note, however, that there is a particular insistence from what the same salafis describe as ’super-salafis’ or “salafi-jihadists’ on the ‘ya’ being associative, therefore the “Hanafiyya” or “Hanbaliyya” vis “Salafiyya” labelling. In the absence of intelligent discourse, rage takes it’s place.
All this seems to serve the interests of those behind the RAND report and the “Secular Islam” project – if you don’t want division, and blame “sufis” (which i don’t assert myself to belong to), please don’t perpetuate division.
[...] An interesting, though a bit amusing, push for a powerful Australian Grand-Mufti. Also, a series on US Foreign policy. [...]
secondly, most scholars consider the word ’sufi’ first to be an ugly western use, and prefer ‘tassawuf’ (persian/arabic), and don’t lean on the ’suf,’ but rather think that ’safa’ (pure) is the source – the science of self-purification, something which the Salaf-us-Salih did without requiring a title for, just like ‘fiqh’ and ‘hijab’ meant different things to the Salaf than they do to us, though those words were used – sufism is often referenced: ‘once it was a reality without a name, now its a name without a reality’
i must add that i get sick and tired of hearing about kabbani (or worse, ‘qadianis,’ talked about as representing sufis… unless salafis think salman al-awdah represents salafis in general. If muslims could just stop helping our enemies – ie, everyone who’s paying attention knows that the Americans are now giving massive support to “sunni extremists” to counter-weight the “Shia crescent,” so should I view every “sunni” comment written slandering Shia as implicit support of America’s neo-con agenda? [It would be true if you put Prince Nayef or Prince Bandar into that box, though]
Salaams Dawud,
You wrote: “for clarification, baybers didn’t argue the points i mention above, but certainly the link Amad posted uses the same broad-brush assault, and ignores the historical links between the Saudi-Salafi family and the west, and the truth that oil money has been funding their school.”
I think you meant Sindbad and not Baybers. In reponse to your overall disagreement with what I wrote and my not tracing a link between the Saudi dictatorship who are certainly Salafis, I’ve decided to include references to it in parts 2 and 3 of this series. Thanks for your comment. I agree with your argument on the oil money and all. In fact, I have the harshest of feelings for the Saudi dictatorship and their cronies who are in bed with neocons and their fellow bosses reaping the efforts of poor people working in sweatshops owned by Western corporations. The war in Iraq must be indirectly blamed on these ‘Salafi’ rulers. But as you may know, much has been written about that complicity. I am simply trying to critique one curious report. I have taken the trouble to mention time and again that this has nothing to do with Sufism or ‘Tassawuf’ as you prefer. I have read a lot of hostile articles and responses by both Sufis and Salafis slandering each other on the Internet. I haven’t taken any particular side. I am simple defending the ordinary Salafi or Muslim or Sufi.
thanks, Sindbad – my fault, my memory is like a sieve, which is why I’d never make it as a muhaddith, wa Allahu alim.
You’re right that much has been written on the Saudi-neocon alliance (by leftists or by journalists like Seymour Hersh), but I think that it’s been ignored in both America and Saudi Arabia.
I don’t want any muslim who believes sincerely in Allah and the last Messenger to have their faith threatened, but Allah determines these matters – The wars and divisions/schisms in the muslim world were destined to happen, all the same we certainly, and agreeably, shouldn’t use slander against each other. “To revile a muslim is corruption of faith, to kill him is disbelief” – hadith sahih.
I put Kabbani and his neo-con “Sufi muslim alliance” as way off to the fringes, someone who has set his feet and vision in America, and believes whatever better entrenches his stay there benefits him. He’s rejected soundly even within the branch of Naqshbandiyya to which he belongs, and the Naqshbandiyya I’ve met in Turkey and the Arab countries resent him strongly; as I said above, he’s like a Salman al-Awdah or Safar Hawali, strong opinions and a certain ‘local’ sentiment, but definitely not speaking “on behalf of the musli community”
Best regards.
Dawud
It’s strange that it always seems to be western muslims who have a problem with the Saudis. Oh and al-Qaeda.
Abdullah, you haven’t spent time there, have you? If you saw the way muslims were treated there- bengali, pakistani, indonesia, african – hell, everyone who isn’t a rich saudi bedu – then you might not be so blase. Human Rights Watch has hundreds of pages about those tortured and abused, Shia and Sufi and Arab and hardcore Salafi and african and those who just plain didn’t please their saudi overlords.
Do tell me why I shouldn’t care about raped maids, torture camps and prisons to rival Gitmo, massive support for the Americans, including housing the factories to make missile guidance systems for Raytheon (used to smash missiles into muslim homes in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iraq) – but I guess you’re cool with that.
What about Prince Sultan air control center, a major management center during the invasion of Iraq? or Dhahran? you really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?
I am an Indian and I lived and worked in Saudi Arabia for many years, mainly in Riyadh but in other parts as well. Dawud paints a picture which may have been his experience but wasn’t mine and isn’t the experience of most of my friend and colleagues. If people were really treated so badly they wouldn’t keep coming! Nobody forces them to go.
Now even though it has some faults, Saudi Arabia is still the one place on earth where Muslims are free to practice their religion and where the government actively supports Islam (even if it is just the Salafi interpretation which they agree with) and promotes it. The fact that Saudis don’t practice sufism but practice salafism/hanbalism upsets a lot of people because they have been blessed by Allah with money and oil whereas the sufis and other groups don’t have money and oil. So they get jealous and start exaggerating the situation in the country and trying to incite hatred against it. That’s what is going on and that is why Dawud seems to be being a bit of a drama queen here with his “saudi overlord” talk.
right, i’m exaggerating. Oh, dear lord. Shall I send you (not sufi, salafi pages) full of the comments I’ve written about? Please note I didn’t even touch on the repression of sufism, though i don’t think you know what talking about there either. CDLR and others have nothing to do with Sufism, and there’s lots to be said about the lack of human rights. forinstance, I ‘m quite concerned about torture (of political activists, social and human rights workers or advocates, even people who just suggest a constitutional monarchy) – but since you think anyone who criticizes them is defacto not a muslim, but a ‘drama queen’ – do you seriously suggest they don’t torture there? Have you not heard the Saudi suggestion that the Americans close down Gitmo and allow the SAudis and Jordanians to do the torturing on their behalf?
as for sufism, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about there either: for instance, they do hold mawlid (discreetly) and Safar al-Hawali recently attended one, at the order of Prince Abdullah.
Or do you think the takfir of Sayid Mohamed al-Alawi al-Maliki was a good thing, to hand out booklets making takfir of him to 6th graders?
Thank Allah that Fahd and Abdullah have more sense, and allowed him back in – if they allowed the backward idiots of the Buraydah sect to run the country, would you appreciate that? (by the way, that phrase “backward idiots from Buraydah” i was told by a prominent Salafi from the Quraysh family, who told me that “some in this country think that Islam means to use the miswak and have your thobe halfway down your calf, and that’s it”, but you can tell me it’s “sufi” nonsense if you like.
Really, this isn’t my blog, and i’ll leave it there. I’m really not, I repeat *not* making up the repression bit – please read the (salafi) Haroon’s book ‘my first police state’ if you think that those you don’t agree with religiously can’t be taken seriously about mundane observations. take it to my blog if you want to continue, and i’ll address your insults accordingly there…
Salaam aleykum, Sindbad;
I think there is one more substantive point to be made: one which I came to think after, sadly, the slander from Zahid that “sufis and other groups don’t have money and oil. So they get jealous and start exaggerating the situation in the country and trying to incite hatred against it.” – Namely the point is that what is being discussed here, as with the discussion of ’sufism/kabbani’ and America’s foreign policy, the idea of power excercised on behalf of religion. We should note that the for muslims, the idea that the powerful are right is a heinous heresy: Was the the Fir’aun right, since he had arguments, magicians, armies, castles, ‘miracles’ (the Nile rising, as the Quran describes), etc? And Musa then wrong to condemn him because he was poor and weak? No, truth is irrespective of power, and Musa spoke the words of God, and though he had a human nature to be afraid of power (the magicians, the stuttering), he was right.
Joseph wasn’t right in his judgements *because* he was later honored by the then Sultan of Egypt, but because he was honored by God, or else by that reasoning, he was wrong earlier when he was thrown into prison, and only right when he was taken out. Ridiculous.
Neither American nor Saudi (too often, American-donated, and earlier, British-sponsored) power justifies or rationalizes their theology or positions. It’s certainly true that those oppressed may be envious or resentful of the powerful, something the Qur’an rebukes (again, regardless of whether we’re talking about America here or saudi, though I tend to hear muslims defend rich arabs [righteous, and give money for jihad] and mock rich Americans [as "fat, fundamentalist Christians, who buy missiles to kill Palestinians"] and don’t realize the irony… wealth and power are no argument in themselves as to whether the person who has them is righteous or not, the wealth of this world is of the blessings of Allah, which he disposes to whom he wills.
The question, more obviously, if one breaks it down, is: should muslims allow the desire for power and wealth to attract us to the doctrines of the powerful? And if it was wrong for the Saudis to join an alliance with the British two hundred years ago to fight the Ottomans, it’s still wrong for the Kabbani’s of today to join with the Americans to fight Saudi power, another “marriage of convenience.”
as the sahih hadith states, which the Prophet warned the companions about wealth: “By Allah, it is not the poverty about which I fear in regard to you but I am afraid in your case that (the worldly) riches way be given to you as were given to those who had gone before you and you begin to vie with one another for them as they vied for them. and these may destroy you as these destroyed them.”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fu.....l#042.7065
“though I tend to hear muslims defend rich arabs [righteous, and give money for jihad] and mock rich Americans [as “fat, fundamentalist Christians, who buy missiles to kill Palestinians”] and don’t realize the irony… wealth and power are no argument in themselves as to whether the person who has them is righteous or not, the wealth of this world is of the blessings of Allah, which he disposes to whom he wills.”
Dawud, I fully agree with you there. Let me say that the Saudi dictators and their wily supporters should not think I am praising them. I think they are dangerous opportunists. All of those who operate sweatshops and are in bed with neocons and sectarians are plain evil. What I merely aim to do is humanize ordinary Salafis. We shouldn’t associate them with “fundamentalists” as is being done by media experts and politicians. This is what I am concerned about. I’ll also be attempting to disprove the allegation that Salafism is to blame for the state of Muslims and how it destroyed Muslim tradition, which is all constructed myths.
I’ve been living 3 years in Saudi now without a problem alhamdulillah. My husband over 6 years now. I think there are issues here in a number of things just like there are in most places in the world but the way people paint Saudi you would think that Saudi is the most shaytanic place in the world.
To be honest I have more problems with the Pakistani / Bangladeshi / Indian workers in shops than I do with Saudis. They tend to have extreme problems with trying to chat up women and ogling and staring at them. It is one of the reasons I don’t go into shops alone because they will come and hang around and stare and try to talk to you. I always take my husband with me as then they don’t say a word. The other day my friend told a worker off who was looking and leering at her daughter. The Saudis on the other hand I generally have dealt with have been very respectful and I feel more comfortable going into a shop if it is only a Saudi.
Peoples perceptions of a place are colored by their experiences and my experience has generally been very good.
Imam Zaid Shakir, a scholar for whom I have respect, once said that “some of the best muslims he knows are Salafis” – I don’t believe that salafis, en masse, have any relation to terrorism. I think the only consistent thing one finds is that they tend to reject other opinions and be rather rigid about considering their opinion the sole acceptable opinion “of the Salaf,” which is why those who disagree prefer not to call them Salafis.
That there are valid differences of opinion agreed upon in Islam ( http://ammanmessage.com ) is valuable, and those Salafis who respect other communities, such as JIMAS and others in the UK, are more than welcome in other mosques. I would like to see the same from Saudi, and reference for instance the “Mafahim” of Imam Mohammad al-Maliki al-Makkah, who I referenced above, where he wrote down those “Understandings” common to ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jamaat, but still had takfir pronounced against him. If it can be recognized that this was wrong and ugly, then progress within this Ummah can be spoken about.
Until then, opportunists like Kabbani and his acolyte, the neo-con Schwartz, will have lots of firewood to burn…
Salaams Fatima,
One of the things I’ve done in the next two parts is humanize Saudis. I’m in agreement with your comments about the people from the Indian sub-continent, many of whom are extremely idiotic and as you mentioned “gawk” at women. I know a guy who dyed his hair to some strange colour so he could “gawk” at more women without suspicion, well that’s what I think.
Dawud, you’ll find that I’ve critiqued both Sufism and Salafism on certain aspects in the series as it progresses. I think the rigidity in Salafism basically balances a Muslim body that would incorporate new things like Sufism has done, and Sufism balances a Muslim body that would be too literalist and follow blindly without much intellectual exertion. They can be understood in an anthropological framework.
I wish we Muslim should stop using labels which are not only labels but ideas that spring out from mainstream Islam. We must all call pourselves Muslims and follow the Straight Path as outlined in the Qur’an. Well, that’s my opinion.
Allow me to add that I’ve also addressed the question of Al-Hallaj and Orthodoxy. The Orthodoxy has been misrepresented as boring, unimaginative etc. which is total nonsense. If it weren’t for the Orthodoxy, I can’t imagine what would have happened to Islamic beliefs. I don’t know what the proggies etc. would have done. In this respect, Saudi Arabia should be applauded.
Sindbad, the ‘Orthodoxy’ is kind of a strawman argument, unless you’re referring to a specific statement. First, thankfully, Islam doesn’t have a “Catholic” (in the sense of all-embracing) clergy, and whatever sense of “right doctrine” is best understood in the sense of ahl-us-Sunnah wal-jamaat, which the Prophet entrusted to the ulema as “warith-ul-anbiya” and to the Jamaat as “not agreeing upon error” – which would mean largely the doctrines of Imam Tahawi and Maturidi.
As to whether al-Hallaj was wrong, that’s pardon me, but as useless an argument as re-arguing ibn Taymiyyah and ibn Arabi, both of whom were scholars far beyond the vast vast majority of the partisans today to comprehend, let alone argue about. Take a look at what’s written on thetranslators.wordpress.com (brother Suhaib Webb and others) as critiques of the RAND reports and other efforts to split up the muslims.
as to the specific assertion that Saudi “as Orthodoxy, isn’t boring and unimaginative” – well, boring and unimaginative isn’t what I would call the fatwa to ban soccer, or force the players to wear shalwar kameez and play in 3 periods, etc… they certainly have imaginations when they say that women can’t go to the graveyard because “then young men will start thinking the graveyards are a place to meet women,” etc – that’s creative thinking for you.
I agree about humanizing Saudis – but to realize that the vast majority of those Bengali (et al) workers were tricked into going there with promises of high salaries, then are stuck in a small hut, working for low salaries (as little as 75 to 100 dollars a month) for years with their passport taken away, just trying to make enough to get away with their pride intact… those people also need to be humanized. And there are definite human rights abuses, most of which I heard from Saudis themselves, of Africans and others, which would be unimaginable in America – kids driving along and kicking an African worker? kids trying to commit suicide on the road, with stunts you can see online? child abuse and sodomy (1/3 of the kids who end up in the hospital for other problems turn out to have been physically or sexually abused, a headline in the pro-Saudi Saudi Gazette in 2005)…
not to mention that the prisons the muslim world (rightfully) condemns in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo have their counterparts (and larger, with thousands of ‘vanished’ prisoners) in the Arab countries – as is quoted from Isa, peace be upon him: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”
On that point, of Muslim Orthodoxy today, I think it’s far best summed up by www.ammanmessage.com – the consensus of which far better expresses Orthodoxy today, let alone the eloquent classical defenses of Imam Ghazali or ibn Taymiyya, or the concise creeds written by Imam Tahawi or Imam Maturidi. Regardless of the political faults of the Hashemite dynasty, this uniting of scholars and attempt to stop bloodshed is far better an expression of ‘Orthodoxy’ than anything from the Najd or Buraydah that I’ve heard recently.
But if there’s some reason destroying the house of Khadijah, the Prophet, and the ahl-ul-Bayt (to place a toilet) or the birth-home (thankfully now a library), while allowing the benefits of McDonald’s and Burger King to reach pilgrims is a far better achievement, do let me know… ( http://www.savethehijaz.org/ )
I visited the savethehijaz website. Interestingly, the “About Us” section is blank. No doubt that preserving heritage is a noble cause. However, whenever I see Ali Ahmad’s name… the one-man show at the Saudi Institute (quoted in the Independent article, the only source of ‘credible’ information on the website), I cringe. Ali Al Ahmed is a Shia dissident in Washington DC. He accused Texas Dawah some years ago of supporting Bin Laden by inviting a Saudi scholar to participate via Videolink. When confronted live on a radio show, his whole charade was ripped apart. Ali Al Ahmad is frequently employed by the neocon army to attack anything Saudi, or “wahhabi”.
In any case, I am not denying if any of what the website is saying, is happening. But, for now, I am not believing any of it until I see REAL evidence, not just some ‘he says, she says’.
there is a quote from Ali Ahmad, but that’s within the context of the article from the Independent, you neither add to nor delete material when an article is quoted.
I have nothing myself to do with the site, so can’t say about much about the people behind it (I can say that I know that Sami Angawi is well respected in his field, and everyone, including myself, can verify that most of the homes, wells, and mosques associated with the Sahaba al-Kiram and others of the Salaf as-Salih, radhi Allahu anhum ajma’in, have been destroyed over the last twenty-thirty years.
I also know that in March of 2004, when a flood during Hajj weakened an old bridge that was part of the Ottoman railway, that it was detonated by Madinah’s religious officials, without the permission of the authorities – and Prince Sultan, of the Historical and Tourism commission, complained loudly in the newspapers, which was new at the time.
As for what’s happened there, everyone (top to bottom) notices the KFC and McDonalds, anyone who know history knows the Ajyad fortress used to be there, anyone who looks can see the signs of the old Madinah Ummayad, Abbasid, and Ottoman constructions (in photos, or small elements) left in the Haramayn… denial isn’t a river in Egypt, eh?
Come one , buildings have been destroyed over the centuries from the time of Umar ibn abdul azeez rah, now the development is on a much bigger scale , so more of the heritage need to be destroyed . Compare the number of pilgrims today to just 20 years ago. Atleas when u criciticize be fair.
Likewise it is not hidden that there are muslims these places of heritage seeking tabarruk from them , such tabarruk is not valid and its the DUTY of the ruler to prevent it in whatever form . Remember the hadith of ‘Umar where he cut down a tree .
I can quote stupid fatwas from all corners of Islamic groups which are extremely absurd which points only to the (mis)understanding of the mufti , nothing more or less.
wa Salaam; that’s a discredited argument; as AbduLlah ibn Umar (radhi Allahu anh) used to stand at the foot of the Prophet’s minbar, putting his hand where the Prophet would, and make dua – and it’s well known that the Sahaba would venerate the spit, hair, and sweat of the Prophet, without deprecating those who did, if you haven’t read the Sira or the Hadith. (see Qadi abu Bakr’s “al-Shifaa”) (& I put a series of hadith and quotations, collated by Gibril Haddad on my blog, linked above)
Certainly those who would worship these without realizing that they acquired worth only through their connection to Allah’s Messenger would be wrong, but those who put more esteem in Burger King and KFC aren’t in any position to judge the others, who at least love the right people.
My point in the above is not to endorse any wrong practices rejected by the ulema, but to say that this Ummah has enough poison within to correct, and it’s unworthy to point to the RAND group and say that America is responsible for poisoning relations between muslims, while one powerful group is doing so for (and has been doing so for years, with oil money and sponsoring masjids and propaganda), and is noted for their arrogant and overbearing manner world-wide… when that’s so, while you might like to blame Kabbani for all the problems, it’d be ridiculous to ignore that his anger at Salafis/ ‘Wahabis’ comes from the genuine tension out there…
if you’ve missed that there’s a self-investigation going on amongst Salafis now about past arrogance and avoidance of social problems (see www.tariqnelson.com or www.umarlee.com for examples of those ongoing discusssions amongst Salafis), you don’t achieve any reconciliation of the Ummah, and you only perpetuate the conflict and oppression out there. To ignore that the powerful and dominant element in the community (that shuts out other views, and has the money to buy up mosques) has been the Salafis, and that other views within ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jamaat (Sunni Islam) are valid and worthy… well, you will then only help the RAND group and the enemies of Islam to divide us even more. look at www.translators.wordpress.com if you want to see intelligent commentary and insights from the Salaf on how to think about these problems.
Khalas. Khush.
Salaams, Dawud
‘Sufism’ and US Foreign Policy Part II
& in conclusion
‘Sufism’ and US Foreign Policy Part III
Leave a Comment