The Wahhabi Myth: Debunking the Bogeyman
Background:
“Wahhabism”—a term used by different people for different reasons. My purpose was to collect some of these uses to serve the end-goal of debunking the term itself. After all, if it means enough different things for different people, it really comes down to not meaning anything real in an absolute sense. Also, as you will see, the use of this term is almost exclusively negative or with implied negative connotations. Hence, you will hardly hear anyone proudly referring to himself as a Wahhabi or a Masjid named Masjid al-Wahhabi. It simply doesn’t occur. What this implies is that there is usually some emotional or prejudicial baggage with the term’s usage or some other sinister agenda.
Conclusion:
As I prowled the internet, there was nearly an unlimited supply of Wahhabi-referring articles, analysis, discussions, blogs, etc. It would fill pages upon pages if I attempted at collecting many of them, let alone all of them. So, here are my top-ten reasons to drop this word from the dictionary, esp. the dictionary of Muslims:
I came across this interesting piece on the blog Musing of a Muslim Mind. I’m not sure I agree with all he says, but much that’s said is worth reading.
I found this blog through the ‘Carnival of Islam in the West, currently hosted by Hakim Abdullah. The next Carnival will be hosted by Abdur Rahman’s Corner on March 9.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
February:28:2007 - 16:20
I have said before here that there are two clear meanings to the term “Wah’habi” that have a solid historical foundation. One is to refer to the religious establishment in Saudi Arabia that supports the monarchy, which has done so since the original alliance between Muhammed bin Sa’ud and Muhammed bin Wah’hab, circa 1740. The other is that the main position of Muhammed bin Wah’hab, advocated since by this establishment, has been to impose and implement the Hanbali Sunni Shari’a law code, the strictest in interpretation of the four, still-existing Sunni Shai’as.
Clearly there is a large division among people to whom this label could be legitimately applied, from more moderate factions of the official Saudi religious establishment, supporting Malik Abdullah bin Abdulaziz bin Abdul-Rahman al Sa’ud, to more radical (and terroristically violent) factions, such as some linked to al Qaeda. This posting is basically correct that the term itself needs further modifiers if one is to use it, and to simply use it as a negative smear label is in itself insufficient.
February:28:2007 - 17:41
No, I think the point here is that the term ‘Wahhabi’ also has a third sense, one that clouds things even worse.
That third sense is ‘fanatical Muslims who will kill for reasons of religion, who are exceptionally xenophobic, narrow-minded, and quick to call takfir.
That this third definition is one that applies to only a tiny minority of those who follow either of your two definitions is the problem. It is used as a slur to dismiss or dishonor those with a more conservative philosophy of Islam whether or not it advocates violence.
February:28:2007 - 17:46
Well, my second group fits your third group, but you are correct that the term gets used carelessly for the third group, even when they do not necessarily advocate implementation of the Hanbali Shari’a code.
February:28:2007 - 17:58
I have to disagree. I know too many Saudis (and others) who fit into the second category but remain quietist in their beliefs. They are for the strictest possible interpretation of Islam but still draw back from seeking to impose their views–forcefully or not–on others.