Comments on: On the Use of the Term ‘Wahhabi’ http://xrdarabia.org/2007/02/28/on-the-use-of-the-term-wahhabi/ Informed comment and commentary about Saudi Arabia, reform, and its relations with the US Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:41:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John Burgess http://xrdarabia.org/2007/02/28/on-the-use-of-the-term-wahhabi/comment-page-1/#comment-2379 John Burgess Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:58:22 +0000 http://xrdarabia.org/?p=2772#comment-2379 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. 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.

]]> By: Barkley Rosser http://xrdarabia.org/2007/02/28/on-the-use-of-the-term-wahhabi/comment-page-1/#comment-2378 Barkley Rosser Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:46:23 +0000 http://xrdarabia.org/?p=2772#comment-2378 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. 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.

]]> By: John Burgess http://xrdarabia.org/2007/02/28/on-the-use-of-the-term-wahhabi/comment-page-1/#comment-2377 John Burgess Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:41:35 +0000 http://xrdarabia.org/?p=2772#comment-2377 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 <em>takfir</em>. 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. 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.

]]> By: Barkley Rosser http://xrdarabia.org/2007/02/28/on-the-use-of-the-term-wahhabi/comment-page-1/#comment-2376 Barkley Rosser Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:20:34 +0000 http://xrdarabia.org/?p=2772#comment-2376 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. 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.

]]>