Comments on: Directions on Iraq: a Blogging Colloquium

By: John

John — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:26:09 +0000

Agreed. ‘Salafists’ (which means “predecessors” or “early generations”) can come from any of the four schools or madhabs. They are usually noted as coming from the Hanbali school, though the term itself implies a period prior to the formation of any of the schools.

As the term ‘Wahhabi’ has come to imply a negative form of fundamentalism, used by opposition figures to describe any sort of fundamentalism they dislike, so has ‘salafist’ become a term of denegration.

The fundamentalist Saudis prefer to use the term ‘Muwahhidun’ (those who believe in the unity of God, or as you put it, ‘Unitarian’) to describe themselves.

As words are used—and abused—their meanings and connotations change. We should try to be clear about just what we’re talking about if context doesn’t make it clear.

In the KSA, many—if not all—Saudis would consider themselves fundamentalist. They might not even object to the term ‘salfist’ or ‘wahhabi’, but what they mean by it is not necessarily what it meant by some of the hardline preachers, official or not.

By: Barkley Rosser

Barkley Rosser — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:57:07 +0000

Let us be precise. The principal point advocated by Mohammed ibn Wahhad was that a Muslim nation should adopt as its law code the strictest of the four main versions of the Sunni Shari’as, the Hanbali. Within Saudi Arabia it is also identified with supporting rule by the Sa’ud family, who have since about 1740 accepted this doctrine.

Salafism is not clearly identified with advocacy of any particular Shari’a code, although Salafist clearly think that at least some Sunni Shari’a code should be adopted and strictly adhered to. It is true in the KSA, however, that things have gotten clouded given the long residency there and penentration of the education system of the Salafist refugees from Egypt (and to a lesser degree from Syria).

By: Barkley Rosser

Barkley Rosser — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:51:25 +0000

Well, actually the term “Wahhabist” is not usually used with approbation. It is used as a term of denigration by those who perceive Saudi funding or support for non-local radical Islamists in their countries, e.g. Russian descriptions of non-Chechen Muslims supporting the Chechen revolt. The term was also widely used to describe the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, including those led by Osama bin Laden who was selected by Turki bin Faisal bin Abdulaziz al Sa’ud to go there. Because the official Saudis hate the term and prefer the Arab equivalent of “Unitarian,” it has become less and less used, although it remains applicable to the hard core official Saudi mullahs.

“Salafism” is used by those who admire its followers. I think this is one reason we see this term increasingly replacing “Wahhabis.” But in the context of Saudi Arabia this is very misleading.

By: John

John — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:33:37 +0000

The terms are confusing. I use ‘Wahhabist’ to refer to those who follow a more-or-less undiluted interpretation as what Abdul Wahhab was preaching. There’s not a whole lot of that around, though, as there has been lots of admixture from both Egyptian and Syrian salafists. Just how to define that is a good question.

I don’t think ‘Wahhabi’ is a very useful term anymore. ‘Salafist’ is hardly better. Both need a lot of description to determine just what’s being discussed. Too often, both terms are simply used as terms of approbation, not to usefully discuss much.

By: Barkley Rosser

Barkley Rosser — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:52:38 +0000

John,

When you list the Salafists, whom are you referring to?
The followers of al Qaeda or the teachers from Egypt?
Why do you not list the official Wahhabists the royal
family supports? There has been a recent tendency to
conflate these two because of the role of Egyptian
Salafists in the Saudi educational system, these guys
having fled from persecution in Egypt, and, of course,
the term “Wahhabism” is disliked by the Saudis. But
these are distinct categories.

By: John

John — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:50:07 +0000

I’ve not heard of cantons being suggested. I’m not sure it would particularly work, unless there were many different ones and residents self-selected for however they defined themselves.

By: lirun

lirun — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 09:03:37 +0000

has there been any talk of cantons as an option for resolution?

By: John

John — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 04:15:25 +0000

I’m sure there are, though I can’t give you an exact location. If I recall correctly, there are enclaves both in the desert area between Syria and Iraq, as well as in the mountains in the east. Most Iraqi Shi’a are Twelvers, though.

The majority of Saudi Shi’a are Twelvers, with the Sevener Ismailis mostly restricted to the southwest of the country.

By: mark safranski

mark safranski — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:35:28 +0000

John,

Are there any Sevener Shia in Iraq ? Or just KSA?

By: The Glittering Eye

The Glittering Eye — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:07:29 +0000

[...] In his contribution to the colloquium John Burgess provides an introduction to some of the many interest groups in the Middle East. In the first part he introduces the major sectarian and ethnic groups in Iraq and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The opening contributions in the colloquium are from James Hamilton, Michael Cook and Shivaji Sondhi, and Rasheed Abou Al-Samh. [...]