This post was inspired by this website: ‘The Wahhabi Myth’

Everybody is always reaching around for the next paradigm in order to control people. When something is being pushed with absolute confidence it is always good to start with the facts and to look at the larger historical and political context that gave rise to them – both of which cannot be seen in isolated pockets. For example, as it relates to the concept of the “Clash of Civilization” – in particular, the new boogeyman of the 21st century: Islam – analyzing the factual basis of this argument is quite simple. Many of the ethnic conflicts that we see today went right through the Cold War but no one was interested enough to really discuss them back then as it could not function in support of the official doctrine. That is standard for any powerful state that has tight control on the socio-economic and political institutions of any country. There is nothing surprising there. The recent Saddam Hussein example is a straightforward case. His worst atrocities against Shias and Kurds were perpetrated during a time when the Iraqi government under Saddam was in a close alliance with the United States. Years later these atrocities were being touted as a justification on national television in order to push an invasion of Iraq amongst other ludicrous arguments.

As it relates to the clash between Islam and the West, to mention an obvious example, Saudi Arabia is one of its most protected and key allies. It is no secret that Saudi Arabia is as extreme of an example you can get of “Islamic fundamentalism” (known as “Wahhabism” — distinguished as different from “Salafism” in this article) and it is quite clear that there is no conflict there whatsoever. The family dictatorship in place there is a United States client and they are kept in power because they keep the money from the oil away from the region’s population. Lastly, there is Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban who were given their power by the United States to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Again, clearly there is no clash of civilization there. Therefore, the concept of an impending or on-going battle between the West and Islam, when placed into proper context, falls apart. Factually speaking, it holds very little ground. In principles, the same can be said, it is absolute hypocrisy and a cynical fraud. The term all together can be discounted.

When it comes to the term “Islamic Fundamentalism”, while I did not specify what context I used it in, it is clear that the definition I am using pertains to: Saudi Arabia’s domestic policy as it relates to the unique interpretation of Shariah Law that is in place in the country through its legal system and unofficial practices. Many of which are identified here (keeping in mind that there are challenges to such interpretations, legitimate or not is another discussion):

Wahhabism: Imam Muhammad Abu Zahra Explains
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=918&CATE=1

In my use of the term ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’, It is not a blanket statement regarding other interpretations nor is it an over-generalization in light of how specific my target is. It is within this context that I used the term ‘Wahhabism’ in also. I did not use it in a derogatory manner by equating it to terrorism or anything of that sort. Context means everything and once these words are removed from their intended purpose it can of course be shaped into anything including one that is shaped by a poor exercise in logic and rationality on the same level as someone like Bill O’Reilly.

The reason why I went through all this short history is to show the importance of historical and political contexts. Sadly, there are people who participate in the task of intellectual hackery when it comes to the issue of Wahhabism and trying to dispel its existence in a historical and political vacuum. It is extremely ignorant to do so and it is a task that can be best described as hairsplitting an issue that is not there. It is much like a paradigm being introduced as the next big rebellious counter for Muslims and non-Muslims against the “ignorant masses” but it lacks relevance, proper understanding of academia and the importance of contexts, politics and history. More specifically, how “terms” rise out historical timelines and come into existence into our vocabulary. To engage in such a task like attacking anyone who uses this term, regardless of context, is subverting the issue all together. In a nutshell, it is an absolute waste of time and is a complete distraction (I personally believe that it is an intended one) to the real issues at hand.

We can call it whatever we want and it does not change anything nor does it address the issues. We can call it Fried Chicken and it will not make a finger lickin’ difference, the context will remain. Many of the people who engage in such a ridiculous focus are much like the 9-11 conspiracy theorists, completely distracting from the real issues. It bugged me when I saw a group of 9-11 conspiracy theorists – as to what their arguments are I do not really care – at the Omar Khadr rally. It was a poor judgment in activism that subverted the issue of the rally in a lot of ways.

We can say: the Saudi government and ulema put forth a Fried Chicken interpretation of Islam as seen in official practice in its domestic policies and legal system along with non-official ones but are still culturally practiced. The word means nothing as It is still identifiable by certain criterions (see link to SunniPath.com article from qualified scholars above again) and it needs a term to go along with it. Of course, there are more apt alternative terms that can be used and effectively argued but it does not make a difference.

It would not surprise me at all that many of the proponents of such a campaign are trying to divert attention from the inconvenient truth: that certain beliefs held by them are along the same line of thinking as the perspectives that have come to inform Saudi’s version of “Shariah Law”. Thus, it is convenient to just deny the term all together, engage in intellectual hackery and waste everyone’s time or just somehow shift the term ‘Wahhabi’ to other groups of identifiable Muslims that they ideologically, theologically and politically oppose — in this case, Sufis. There are many Muslims who use this as a boogeyman word and they can go ahead and do that. Nevertheless, for the majority of these people who do use it in a negative manner, they will often buckle at the knees and will not be able to define what they exactly mean by that term. What context is the person utilizing the term “Sufi” in? Context means everything. Without context, if we call it Fried Chicken it would still mean Fried Chicken because it lacks the most important part to make sense. Likewise, the same applies when people abuse the term “Wahhabism”.

When context is clearly identified then there is room for discussion and negotiation. Therefore, someone can explain why he or she does not believe it should be used and it is completely reasonable. As long as context is provided and it is appropriate in its intended purpose then use it all you want.

The term is no more offensive than “Castroism” or other terms that have come to be attached to a particular personality. In the case of Wahhabism and Castroism, absent from context, both just sound like people’s last names. Of course, arguments can be made regarding whether or not the terms accurately portray the perspectives of either Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab or Fidel Castro but context is needed in order for such a discussion to even begin.

Is it fair? Of course it is not fair sometimes as such terms can function within a million different contexts. Personally, I took a political approach while SunniPath.com has taken a more historical and theological one in identifying how Wahhabis came to be and how they differ in aqeedah, fiqh and so forth.

I dislike terms such as radical, moderate, extremists and fundamentalists but within the proper context I would let them slide. Do I personally use these words? Yes, sporadically but I do not freak when I hear them. I can either spend my time trying to stop people from using such words – a complete waste of time in real world politics — or I can discuss the issues at hand. It is a fatal mistake in intellectual exercise to treat such terms in a monolithic manner in a political and historical vacuum. Again, replace these words with something else but the context is the most important and vital part. Have a party, replace it with bubble gum flavors, it does not change anything.

In the spirit of resistance,
Critical Mood