Gallery

The “Global Security” wesbite’s Attempt to Breakdown Salafism

Bismillahi ar-Rahman ar-Raheem

I came accross the following link http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-salafi.htm which took upon itself to describe what “salafism” is.

I will pin point each error that has occurred

Salafi is a term often used to describe fundamentalist islamic thought.

The teachings of the reformer Abd Al-Wahhab are more often referred to by adherents as Salafi, that is, “following the forefathers of Islam.” This branch of Islam is often referred to as “Wahhabi,” a term that many adherents to this tradition do not use. Members of this form of Islam call themselves Muwahhidun (“Unitarians”, or “unifiers of Islamic practice”). They use the Salafi Da’wa or Ahlul Sunna wal Jama’a. Wahhabism is a particular orientation within Salafism. Most puritanical groups in the Muslim world are Salafi in orientation, but not necessarily Wahhabi.

Contention: If the term “wahhabi” is utilized with the intent to describe the followers of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, then the demarcation described here is baseless.

What makes this claim even that much more baseles is the fact that in the mind of those who oppose “wahhabis” amongst their scholars (not the lay people) there is no difference between the two

What further amplifies the baselessness of this claim is the mere fact of the non existentialism of something called wahhabi.

The Salafiyyah are a movement, and like the Sufis, can come from the Maliki, the Shafi, the Hanbali, or the Hanafi. But, that said, the Salafiyyah movement, is primarily confirmed to the Hanbali, and in particular the Wahhabiyyah, and their theological equivalents.

Without being satirically critical (due to the hilariousness of the claim) I will have to explain the first part of the absuridty which is “and in particular, the wahhabiyyah”

there is no “wahhabi” or “non wahhabi” strand of “hanbalism”. Hanbalism (hanaabilah) is both a theological and jurisprudential school of thought. The reason why this specialty for the hanbali school to the exclusion of the other schools is that the one whom the school is affiliated with i.e. Ahmad bin Hanbal, is both a juristic source of knowledge and was the representation or the full embodiement of the theological aspects of all previous schools (awzaa’ee, Hanafi, Maaliki, Shafi’ee, etc). Thus the Hanbali school became a theological school as well whereas the other schools did not. In the view of the various scholars, followers of each school, if they agreed with the theology of the founder, were considered completed. For example, a hanbali who had the same creed as its founder (Ahmad bin Hanbal) was a complete hanbali. That is because people can be of any jurisdical relationship with any founder while not necessarily having the same theological beliefs as the founder. Thats how Hanafism was invaded by Maturidism and Mutazilism. Since the so called “wahhabis” shared every single theological view as its founder Ahmad bin Hanbal, then they represent pure hanbalism. SO in the view of the orthodox sunni muslims of whatever madhaab, no one views a “wahhabi” strand within the orthodoxy of Islam.

Secondly, what is meant by “and their theological equivalents”? Do you assert that there could be more than one wahhabi trend or strand.

There is however one piece of information that is pleasing to me and my eyes, and it is the following

The Salafi jihadist movement has attracted rootless and or committed internationalist militants. They fight for the jihad, seeking to re-create the Muslim ummah and shariat to build an Islamic community. Simultaneously conservatives and radical, they form a global network that has attracted Muslims from around the world to fight jihad in Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and the Philippines. The salafi-jihadist movement in Central Asia and the Caucasus is more localized — an expression of identity in areas such as Ferghana, villages in Daghestan, and upper Gharm valley. In Central Asia, the term “Wahabi” refers to fundamentalists who come from Pakistan or Afghanistan, but they are not necessarily a political movement. For example, Wahabis in Tajikistan do not recognize themselves as a political alignment. However, most Central Asian regimes use the term Wahabi more broadly to describe Islamic religious movements outside the states’ control.

This statement in bold further proves the fact that wahhabism in the minds of various people connotate various abstract realities.