The atomism of the Wahabi

"Soap suds in a bubble,
Enmeshmed in a whirpool.
Draining down to the bottom,
Wishing up to fight some"

The Atomism of the Wahhabi.
Call them what you will; sensationalist Wahhabis, Ahl ul-Hadeeth (people of the Prophetic Sayings), or the misnomer Ahl ul-Sunnah wa'l Jammah (people of the Prophetic Way, who hold the centrist position of being from, of and for the people); but by whichever name you choose there is one undisputed fact regarding them.

Their claim to superiority over all other Muslims resides in their belief that their (methodology of) understanding our glorious Deen returns not to the millennia of Muslim Hegemony, nor to the century of expansionist Islam, but to the decades of residing directly under the care of Prophetic love and guidance.

Is this claim true?

Or is it possible to see within all that they do, and say, a very modern phenomena?

Worldly Reflections.
In the early part of the Twentieth Century the Ottoman Empire sought, time and again, to ally itself with Germany in regards of the essentially European Wars.

The answer to questions of Why, lies in the fact that the Ottomans were not alone. In fact the Catholic Church did likewise.

Was the Ottoman Policy one of expediency, that it best suited their interests at that particular time? Or was it as the Catholic Church saw it one of a clash between World Views?

If the Catholic Church had been trying to win a vote of confidence surely they would have done better. But in all likelihood they saw Western Europe as a place of deteriorating moral values and Germany as a conservative force that would entrench traditional Christian Values. The price they were willing to pay was elitism for popularity (a small price considering that the Christian Church is essentially elitist, recall the three profession open to gentleman in the Victorian age: Military, Polity and Christianity (men of the cloth- the Clergy)).

I can only imagine a similar thought process occurring to the Ottomans. Fearful of modernity and the lassie-faire culture that was taking root within Europe and desperately wanting to entrench things as they were.

The conclusion that I draw is that “What happens in the World, is reflected in what happens within OUR (Muslim) World”!....

A Summary Analysis of that Possibility.
When we look at Islamic Movements that have spanned our century, can we not see that the Brotherhood was, and still is today, an essentially rationalist movement.

Coming from a Scientific and Planning background it is easy for me to see that. For at the beginning of the 20th Century the Scientific and Rational Method became pre-eminent. In Planning theory this was what was called RCP, Rational Comprehensive Planning.

The idea being that giving enough brain power we could achieve anything we wished to achieve, which was in itself a spin off from humanist philosophy.

What did this mean?
Well to the Brotherhood it meant an essentially top- down concept. That it interpreted in an elitist manner (and even today interprets as such).

And so the theory was that the brotherhood knew it’s remit and what it wanted to achieve. Its end-goal was the establishment of an Islamic State (but what they possibly failed to think on was what does an Islamic State mean in a Modern Age?).

And they knew the methodology, RCP.

And the rest is, as they say, history... Specifically the history of Sadat-Era Egypt. Which proved to be the failure of RCP and the brotherhood, for in the last analysis “they did not know!”.

And today we continue to have the brotherhood in all it’s different forms, but most people being disillusioned with RCP, and that formula, have taken another Highway.

And now I see those who once honoured highly Egypt, the land of Hassan Al-Banna (may Allah t’ala have mercy on him), scorn and laugh on it. (And as with all that swings oftentimes they have swung away from rationalism towards sufism.)


"Soap suds in a bubble"
The way of the Muslims has recently been to swing with the waves that govern, not just OUR (Muslim) World, but the Whole World.

So the question beckons are we merely a reflection of all that we hate.

And if that is the case, then the solution should be simple.... learn not to hate it, but to think for yourself (in the time-honoured tradition of the Muslims), and take what is good and leave off what is bad.

The Version of the house of Al-Saud.....
One story in particular illustrates what I have to say.
I try to be an avid reader of all things about the Seerah (the life of Muhammad (saw)), and so when Ar-Reeq ul-Mukhthum (probably transliterated all wrong, “The sealed blessed nectar”) came out I bought it and read it through.

This book had won some Saudi prize for excellence. And yet I who am a novice found three glaring mistakes in it. These were not grammatical nor spelling errors, but clear errors in understanding.

Two of them were minor and I have since forgotten what they were. But one of them, which has since been corrected, was glaring.

The author claimed that the Pact of Hilf ul-Fadl occurred after Prophethood.

That Pact of the Virtuous was made in the house of Ibn Judan, and in a land where the only LAW was one of protection by the Tribal Chiefs.

At it some Chiefs and ordinary men gathered to pledge that they would side with the oppressed against any oppressor. (It would be interesting to study whether or not the men who broke the blockade and banning of Quraish (after Muhammad (saw) had become the Messenger of ALLAH t’ala) were in fact beholden to this Pact... A question for another rainy day.)

And Muhammad (saw), after Prophethood, said (Ibn Ishaq & Ibn Hisham): “And now in Islam, if I were called to take part in it I would gladly accept!”

All other Seerah writers placed this incident, in accord with the above saying, before Prophethood.

Why did the Al-Saud version (now corrected) take the unprecedented step of saying otherwise?

Muhadith are by their occupation supposed to be narrators and not analysers.

And this was a serious case of the wrong type of analysis!

Did the author believe that the Prophet could not have said that?

Did he believe that there was no good in the Prophetic Life prior to Islam?

If not then what of cleaning of the Prophet's Chest, or the re-building of the Kaba.

If not then such a person, out of unforgivable ignorance, would utter falsities against those of the Prophet's children that had died prior to his Prophethood.

What nonsense this man was shovelling, and prize giving nonsense at that.

“Support your brother”.....
Did not the Prophet (saw) also say “Support your brother, whether he be the oppressed or oppressor!”

And the companions were shocked.
For these were words they knew from their days of Ignorance (for they would be used to incite towards greater oppression).

And then Muhammad (saw) took the filth and washed it away and said, “If your brother oppresses, help him! Stop him!” (all Paraphrased.. please peruse the source for yourself.)

Is this a Modern Phenomenon?
The Scientific Age saw man trying to understand the Universe and his place within it through the methodology of atomism.

They believed that they could explain all, planetary motion and the weather and on, by breaking all things in to their fundamental bits (into their atomic particles).

OUR Times.
Does our Muslim World reflect these times?
What are the atomic parts of our religion?
"To understand them is to understand all!"

That is the atomic thesis of the house of Al-Saud.

And so we see in our times that the Scholarship of the Past has gone and all things have become the “atomic” hadith.

Seerah has become hadith.....
Tafsir has become hadith.....
Fiqh has become hadith.....

Where once each was a flowering tree of knowledge, a different (yet inter-related) species (but not genus), and now all have died and all that remains is hadith studies, but by different names!

And it is tragic to note that of all of these incredible disciplines, it is the one that developed last in their spectrum (and is the most recent) that has caused the demise of the rest of them.

For first people studied Tafsir ul-Qur’an and the beloved Seerah of Muhammad (saw). And then Fiqh developed as a means of making sense (or lending order to) of Juristic edicts. And finally the Hadith Sciences developed as a means of verifying (but not embellishing) all that had been said before.

And now it has gone on from that and is now a means for all. Sufficient for all!

Does that Similarity work for you?....
Well that is a matter for you to judge.

But for me, the arrogance that I meet when I sometimes come into contact with my Salafi brothers.

I have felt and heard it all before.
I have felt, and heard, it before from the same Scientists who claim to know it all.

May ALLAH t’ala forgive me if I have erred, my intentions are honourable..... And I send my salutations and blessings upon Rasul Allah (saw), may ALLAH t’ala reward him abundantly, forever and ever.

Ameen, Thumma Ameen.....
Shafi (first posted a year ago on my Muslim Only Blog).