Alas, when Saudi government officials speak, they are rarely paragons of clarity. Instead, they tend to rely on oblique statements that the listener must integrate with his/her own understanding of the issues. That is the case in this Saudi Gazette article reporting on head of the Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities Pr. Sultan Bin Salman’s statement about protecting historic sites in the Kingdom.
The context is that the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice have expressed concern that some historical sites, particularly around Mecca and Madinah, are being used for heterodox purposes by non-Salafi Muslms. The Commission has spoken publicly and has sometimes taken physical action to prevent this. In some instances, it has sought to close or destroy the sites. That, Pr. Sultan says, is not going to happen. Arabian history is Arabian history, regardless of how some may choose to interpret it.
While the Prince promises preservation, he did not address the issue of preservation in the face of economic and infrastructure development. Nor did he discuss how accidents, such as the demolition of part of the historic Hejaz Railway a few years back.
Antiquities to be preserved at all cost – SCTA chief
Dr. Khalid Al-FirmRIYADH – Prince Sultan Bin Salman, Chairman of the Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities, in an exclusive and wide-ranging interview has touched upon the issue of the removal or demolition of historical sites, the importance of establishing museums to correct misconceptions about the Kingdom’s history, and various steps being taken to restructure the nation’s tourism sector.
Prince Sultan said that the Kingdom’s historical sites and antiquities are protected by a national will extended from King Abdullah, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.
“National antiquities are protected and no one on earth can demolish, destroy or touch them … We respect people’s keenness and we take guidance from religious scholars, and we are determined that these archeological sites will not be turned into places that encourage heresies which encroach on our faith,” he said.Prince Sultan also stressed the importance of correcting misconceptions through enlightenment and development of museums for displaying antiquities because they are part of history. “Islamic history did not happen on the moon but in the Arabian Peninsula. It is impossible to ignore the cultural history of the Kingdom.”
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
February:02:2009 - 14:53
Hi,
You always seem to categorize the Salafi interpretation as if it were wrong or something specific to Saudi Arabia, which it imposes on others.
I wouldn’t have bothered writing this to you, but when I read the ‘About’ in this blog that you are open to discussion, I thought I should write to you and try discussing with you.
From a logical perspective, no matter which law, one has to take a stance, one will have to stick to an opinion. When a country has to be governed, among two or three conflicting opinions, one has to choose one. So no matter which interpretation one chooses, others are always going to complain.
From an Islamic perspective, though some may think I’m being a judge, Salafi interpretation is the real way or correct way of interpreting Islam. Why?
Simple… Islam is based on two sources: Qur’an and Sunnah. How do we interpret these texts? The Salafi or the orthodox way is: We try to understand what was originally intended when it was revealed. How? The Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) were the direct audience during revelation. They were directly taught by the Prophet. So they understood the closest possible meaning as intended.
Salafi is short for: Following the Qur’an and Sunnah on the methodology/understanding of the Salaf-us-Salih.
The practices that are common in some countries that have been termed heresies were not approved of by the Prophet or the companions, in fact they were unheard of during that time.
The point here is: It doesn’t matter what people think, or how ‘orthodox’ it may seem, what matters is that this is Islam in its purity, and Muslims want to know Islam and follow it, not some modern version of secularism to please – and have more in common with – the West.
February:02:2009 - 16:20
I do not discredit the Salafi interpretation per se. Orthodoxy, however defined and by whomever defines it, is not inherently wrong or even suspect. ‘Orthodoxy’, however, is itself problematic if it is solely self-defined. I’m happier with definitions that the majority of a sect/religion agree. As it’s always open to some definition, anyone can claim, ‘I have higher values than you, therefore I’m the orthodoxy here’. Where does that end?
As Islam lacks a structural hierarchy, which itself might define ‘orthodoxy’, I think ‘orthodox’ in the Islamic sense has to be rooted in what most people claim and practice. That leaves room for those who disagree on doctrine, in whichever spectrum one likes to take the measurement.
I do criticize those who either say, ‘My way or the highway,’ as many Saudi Salafis do, and those who are punctilious about ritual or cultural behavior while losing sight of the reason behind those rituals. By this I mean, does God really not accept a prayer if one bows at an angle of X+5 degrees when a Sunnah says the Prophet bowed only at X degrees? By this, I mean those who abjure modern technology because the Prophet did not use it. Rationally, had it been available to him, might he not have had his wives drive a car rather than a camel or donkey or horse? Might he not have enjoyed a mobile phone with cameras? Other facets of his life suggest that he might have done.
Salafism is too often used as an excuse to avoid making any change. That mindset is not restricted to Salafis or religious orthodox, not even religious conservatives. Many people in many cultures simply don’t like change. But rejecting change for questionable, if not outright spurious religious reasons is a serious misapplication of religion. That is the only kind of Salafi I criticize.
February:02:2009 - 23:13
When we toured Maid’an al Saleh last year some of the outer areas of tombs were riddled with gun shots as many believe Maid’an al Saleh and the Nebatians (sp) were pagans and therefore the sites should be destroyed. Fortunately it is now on the International Registry of Historic sites and muttawa do not enter the area. It is one of the best places to see in Saudi Arabia and gives one a glimpse of the wide and diverse history of the Kingdom.
February:04:2009 - 15:35
Thanks for the reply John.
You said: “I do criticize those who either say, ‘My way or the highway,’ as many Saudi Salafis do.”
If you mean to say that you criticize those who say their way is the right way. Then that’s not specific to Salafis, every group and every religion claims that its right.
Ask yourself, why do choose to criticize? Because you think you are right in doing that. That’s the basis. Everyone holds an opinion because they think their opinion is right.
As for saying ‘Orthodox’ is what the majority holds, then that’s a serious error if one wants to look into facts. Because a majority, as in a democracy, may not be always right. Can a professor and a layman be held at the same level? That’s democracy, and that’s majority!
Gerald de Gaury (1897 – 1984), the British historian, in an account of describing how Islam was practiced throughout the Muslim world in the early 20th century concluded by saying: “The Afghans, Kurds, and the Algerians prefer the more secretive rites of the Derwish orders. Egyptian and Indian Muslims, the Turks and the Bokharans, the Muhammadans of the Far East, and West and Central Africa all have found or devised a sect to suit themselves….
…but ultimately Mecca is the holiest city of all, and the Wahhabis follow the creed nearest to that revealed by the Prophet.”
As for the Sunnah and rituals, yes you are right, one shouldn’t lose sight of the essence of these practices. The reasons should be known along with putting them into practice. They both go hand in hand (but I don’t see how this conflicts or comes in our discussion).
As for modern technology, its a big misunderstanding that Islam is against it.
Here’s the basic principle differentiating religious issues with worldly issues:
For all aspects of worship and aspects of religion (Ibaadah):
Every act is forbidden unless there is proof of it in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Meaning the religion is complete. Nothing can be added to it or subtracted. Nothing with a religious status or divinity could be introduced except what has already been prescribed.
For all other aspects like food, clothing, and cultural things (Aadah):
Everything is permissible unless there is explicit prohibition of it in the texts. E.g. All food is permissible except alcohol, pork, blood, etc.
All types of clothes are permissible except that are transparent, tight, resembling opposite sex or specific to other religions etc etc.
So John, modern technology has never been a problem.
You may think about videos and photography. Now that’s the only issue, because there are explicit texts against making images. So you see these issues are complicated, and there is a difference of opinion among scholars. Some define videos and photos under making images, like drawing and painting, so they say only non-living things can be pictured.
Others say no, videos and photos work on the concept of a mirror, a mirror that can retain the image…. And so unless the picture is of something Haraam, and some conditions like its not used to venerate people etc… they say its fine. Others take a view in middle of these two…
And these are all Salafi scholars…
February:04:2009 - 15:57
And in addition can u also explain your statement, “As Islam lacks a structural hierarchy, which itself might define ‘orthodoxy’.”
I would like to know what you mean by a structural hierarchy.
February:04:2009 - 17:57
I might have been more precise–even elegant–in what I said.
What I meant was that I have no place for those who say, “Do it my way or you’re going to hell and I’m going to make your life on earth a hell until you get there.” I also strongly wonder about those who, while proclaiming a merciful and compassionate God–nearly all religions do–insist on the meanest, narrowest ways of interpreting rules for life.
Strictness? Fine. Abnegation of modernity? Fine. Dietary restrictions? Fine. Eschewing the things that bring cultural practice into religious practice? Fine. Those can be taken to extremes, but as a generally conservative person, I don’t have any real quarrel with them.
Modern technology has always been a problem for some Saudi Salafis… radio, TV, photography, cell phone cameras have all met widespread condemnation largely for the reasons you cite. Those condemnations have, eventually, been pushed back by the Saudi ulema, which is, of course, also Salafi. So, while there are some who can readily see room for modernization, there are also those who reject it, or at least try to deny it to others, based solely on their own interpretation of Salafi Islam. Those are the ones I worry about.
It is my experience that too many Saudis reject the idea of change on principle. They don’t need to think about it, to find religious justification for why something might be prohibited. If it’s new, then the answer is, “No!” I’ve no quarrel, again, if they choose to live their lives by the most austere and strict standards. I do quarrel when they believe they have the duty to coerce others to stick to that standards. That, to me, approaches shirk, where they put their own judgment above all others.
The bottom line is that I have nothing at all against Salafism, per se. Many Salafis use the God-given gift of reason to make life at least as pleasant as possible for all. Others, the ones who do not receive my approbation, are the ones who think that joy and happiness are in themselves suspect and likely sin. ‘Salafism’ covers a broad spectrum. I fully acknowledge that. But I do believe that some seriously tarnish the reputation of the many.
February:04:2009 - 18:09
A structural hierarchy is one that had a leader, deputies on various levels, and then the mass of the faithful. Some have a group that provides leadership, as a Synod. Many/most religions have a head, whether a Pope, Bishop, Guru, Celestial Master, Head Rabbi, and the like. Some forms of Shi’ism, at least and particularly in the Iranian Twelver form, have a hierarchical structure of clerics.
The role of a hierarchy is to maintain a definition of what is orthodox and what is heterodox and interpret religion for the followers. In some circumstances, that is left to the individual leader; usually it involves a group of high-level leaders.
Sunni Islam, of course, does not have a Pope or anything like it. It rejects the idea of a formal clerisy. The interpretation of Islam is left to local or regional bodies, as informal as they may be. This, inevitably, leads to a splitting of the paths over definitions. What is considered perfectly ordinary in Indonesia, for instance, is considered highly suspect if not out-and-out heretical in other countries. This, in turn, leads to the discord that often accompanies Salafist missions (Saudi or otherwise) that seek to ‘correct’ their fellow Muslims.
In Saudi Arabia, it also leads to peculiarities in the courts. As each judge is deemed suitable to interpret the law based on his understanding of the Shariah, there are very strange and idiosyncratic rulings that astound, if not appall others, including other judges.
February:06:2009 - 17:16
Great!
You said: “‘Salafism’ covers a broad spectrum. I fully acknowledge that. But I do believe that some seriously tarnish the reputation of the many.”
I totally agree with that. So I suggest and request that in the future you separate the ‘some’ from Salafis in ur posts. Its a pain really these few ignorant ppl tarnish the image.
You also said: “Modern technology has always been a problem for some Saudi Salafis… ”
“Those are the ones I worry about. ”
I understand you are addressing the Scholars here and not the normal people. I do not agree with that because modern technology hasn’t always been a problem. Donating organs, for example, Saudi scholars and many more from different countries said it was permissible with conditions that its not sold for money or the organs are not like heart that are required for one’s life. Hair transplant is another contemporary issue that they said was permssible. i can think of two now… actually if u search u will find many…
And scholars even if they held a view that wasn’t right or was conservative, they do that based on principles of islam, not based on their own likes and dislikes.
Only specific technologies have had differences of opinions, and both sides have had valid arguments. And these objections have not been from Salafis alone. In fact from most prominent Muslim groups.
Secondly, I agree some(ignorant people and not scholars) are just too narrow in their views that they impose one view over others. But another side of the issue is: not all views and opinions are valid.
Only opinions and explanations that stem out from the fundamental principles laid down for interpretation are valid. Now these are more technical things. There are fundamental principles required for a scholar to interpret qur’an or hadith. The stages are such : Quran, Hadith, Ijmaa (what the companions of prophet agreed upon). These three are the most fundamental requirements to understand/interpret Islam. What comes after these are Language and Qiyas. Qiyas is: if the issue isnt understood or found in the texts like contemporary issues, then a scholar puts all the above principles and derives an understanding from them.
For eg: If there’s a verse in the Qur’an that needs explanation, classical scholars look into how prophet muhammad pbuh explained it. How the companions explained it. they look into the classical language of arabic etc.
If there’s a new issue. like smoking etc. This wasnt there during the time of the prophet. so they look into the broad principles in the qur’an, hadeeth and look into similar incidents and cases during the time of the companions and if they held a common view on something etc… and they derive a ruling. like smoking is proved to be poison or slow poison so the ruling is that of a poison. etc. This is just a simple example.
Now totally blatant interpretations that have no authority in the texts nor have been studied as required using its principles, just like anyother science, are totally not acceptable.
Like if someone says I want to understand the meaning of such and such word as such and such, even though its blatantly false. For e.g. i want to say that a cow means a dog, its blatantly false.U know what i mean. Now these things are not known by common people, because they are not educated by ISlam. Not known by common Muslims, so what about Western media and non-Muslims?
So John, when it comes to interpretations, media over simplifies these issues and attacks in a very broad manner, though the issue is not simple… its much more complex than people saying.. thats their interpretation or they dont follow other interpretations. Islam is a whole science. But yea… the opinions and interpretations from the correct roots and principles are sometimes ignored or totally disrespected by people who have less knowledge and jump into things they shouldn’t be.
As for clergy, yea.. the kind found in the christian world is not with us. Islam doesn’t believe there are intermediaries between u and God. There have always been scholars to guide Muslims, and that has always been sufficient and wll be sufficient Insha Allah. Scholars who teach people Islam and purify it from the things people over generations may want to add.
There has never been a time in the Islamic history that this didn’t happen.
Anywys it was nice talking to u… looks like we do have a common ground of understanding. If u do have questions I’d love to answer.
Though I’m not putting anymore question to u… becuz the issues i wanted to discuss with u looks resolved, but i will wait to see what ur reply is…
February:06:2009 - 17:44
Abu Omar, Thanks very much for your reply.
As I’ve said, I’ve nothing particular against Salafism, or conservative beliefs in any religion. I do have things against any religion that uses coercion.
I also have problems with the use/abuse and authority of ahadith. Perhaps it is due to my doubt that any isnad is truly authoritative. The reliable collectors lived an awfully long time after the time of the Prophet and their work, in my belief, is very subject to error. As a result, I find it uncomfortable–to say the least–when clerics seem to pick and choose among them (and they do often contradict each other) to win an argument.
I do not wish to get into an argument over it, but I’m sure you’re aware of the status/non-status of the remarks about the ‘Satanic Verses’. To my mind, that typifies the problem.
As a non-Muslim, I cannot take it as an article of faith that all things are well-intended, without other motive. Certainly, people can act with good intentions, charity, humility, spiritual generosity. But people do not always act in that manner. Thus, I need a higher level of rational demonstration or proof to accept the veracity of what they say and particularly of what they promote.
Again, thanks for the conversation.
February:06:2009 - 18:03
John, I completely agree with your post 9.
I would add speaking for myself that I sometimes torn, and wish we did have formal clergy. Because I generally feel we get none of the benefits of clergy and alot of what is wrong with clergy. Scholars seem no more immune to being seduced by power and authority than anyone else. Personally I have issues with the “science” of hadith and the quaility of Islamic scholarship in general. I prefer to decide for myself many things. And if I am wrong- that’s my choice.
February:06:2009 - 18:53
Something that struck me–very hard, actually–about the Akhbari Shi’a of Bahrain and other Gulf regions was their approach. They believe that when the 12th Imam vanished, that was it for spiritually-directed government until he returns. Until that time, we all just do the best we can. We can follow good guides, but ultimately it will come to standing before God and explaining our choices. If you think the way to God includes drinking alcohol–no matter what others say–then that’s going to be resolved in the end. I found it to be a low-fuss religion, though clearly it is a form of Islam.
Ultimately, we have to be responsible for the choices we make, good or bad, God or no God.