Customer Reviews

Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Natana J. Delong-Bas's book, "Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad," which purportedly explains Wahhabism "accurately" and dispels "myths" propagated by "polemics" of all colors, media pundits and all, is a rather welcome contribution - or so it seems, at first glance. The three-page Introduction portrayed several people - including Stephen Schwartz (footnote 1,7,9,11), Khaled Abou El Fadl (footnote 3), and myself (footnote 6) -- as examples of misinformed individuals, in the least, who portrayed Wahhabism inaccurately in their works. To the author, their anti-Wahhabi rhetoric, like many others, flew in the face of the facts that she allegedly gathered in her more than 300 pages of research, much of it translated into English for the first time. Delong-Bas's point: Wahhabism just isn't the scary monster it is said to be. Maybe it really was a "pathbreaking" (Oxford Press), "groundbreaking" (John L. Esposito), endeavor, I thought.

Could the portrayal of Wahhabism as intolerant and fanatical by hundreds, maybe thousands, of Muslim and non-Muslim scholars, authors, activists, students, etc. in 200+ years past be flawed? Should their positions be construed merely as a load of sophisticated/polemical gobbledygook? Does the author really open "the way for historians to reconsider and revise the standard, perhaps mistaken, notions about it" (David Commins)? One need not go to far into the book to answer such questions. Because of the author's main sources, the book fails miserably as a work of diligent scholarship.

In the Preface,Delong-Bas says: "Thanks are due to Faisal bin Salman, Abd Allah S. al-Uthaymin, and Dr. Fahd al-Semmari, Director of the King Abd al-Aziz Foundation for Research and Archives, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for making the full corpus of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab's works available to me [...]." This same research foundation was also one of three sources that provided "financial support" for her book. What follows is a brief description of who the author is thanking.

The Foundation is named after King Abd al-Aziz (1902-1953), the Wahhabi founder of Saudi Arabia who slaughtered non-Wahhabi Muslims (and even Wahhabi Muslims of the Ikhwan) in his path to "victory".

Abd Allah S. al-Uthaymin, a Wahhabi, is the author of "History of Saudi Arabia: From the Movement Reformer Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab to King Abd al-Aziz."

Faisal bin Salman, known as "H.R.H. (His Royal Highness)" in Saudi Arabia, is one of the princes of the Wahhabi Al-Sa'ud monarchy. Somehow, Delong-Bas (Oxford Press?) did not add the "H.R.H." acronym before the prince's name in the Preface -obviously a part of the book read by many. However, she remembered to add the acronym in a tiny-lettered footnote #8 (Introduction) hidden well in the back of the book that few readers would perhaps bother to read. Why did Delong-Bas/Oxford Press do this? Were they trying to hide something?

Dr. Fahd al-Semmari, a Wahhabi, was deputy secretary of the kingdom's 100th Anniversary Committee, in addition to his current role as general director of the King Abd al-Aziz Foundation for Research and Archives. The foundation's mandate is to glorify the heritage of Saudi Arabia, including Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab who is a part of the heritage.

On page 14, Delong-Bas states the four main sources of biographical information of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab:

(1) contemporary chronicles written by his supporters, the most important of whom were Husayn Ibn Ghannam and Uthman Ibn Bishr; (2) polemical works written by his opponents, the most important of whom was Ahmad bin Zayni Dahlan; (3) accounts written by Western travelers to Arabia; and (4) Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's own written works.

She then says, "Of all of these accounts, the chronicles contain the most biographical information and are considered to be the most accurate in terms of biographical information because of the proximity of the writers to their subjects."

Does close proximity to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab/"subjects" necessarily mean the sources will be the "most accurate in terms of biographical information"? Common sense says no because Ibn Ghannam and Ibn Bishr are clearly stated to be Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's "supporters". It's like contacting a pro-Nazi foundation for a biography of Adolph Hitler, and portraying sources by Hitler's admirers as the "most accurate" because they were among the closest in "proximity" to him. Is there not a high possibility that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's "supporters" mainly focused on his peaceful biographical aspects, and concealed his more extremist/jihadist aspects? Is it not possible that they, like any other supporter, would care to cast the biography of a man they like in a positive manner than in a negative manner? Common sense, again, says: In all likelihood.

There is, in fact, a high probability of inaccuracy from those sources, though this somehow escapes Delong-Bas's mind. Moreover, according to my count, the author has footnoted Ibn Ghannam only 4 times, but Ibn Bishr no less than 45 times, meaning that the bulk of "most accurate" biographical information of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab comes almost entirely from one source - again, from a pro-Wahhabi. How, then, can Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's biography, as presented in Delong Bas's book, be taken seriously by any objective scholar? It cannot.

While pro-Wahhabis are used as "most accurate" sources, information from Wahhabi opponents "has not been used extensively" because they (1) are "extremely polemical in style rather than factual or straightforward"; (2) they address "later developments" of the Wahhabi movement; and (3) "because of their polemical nature, these accounts tend to be more useful in reconstructing impressions of the movement than in recounting events or teachings." And that's why "polemical works have been largely discarded" in giving the biography of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the "early teachings of the movement."

But what makes the sources of two Wahhabi supporters more accurate than the works of Wahhabi opponents? While the former are closer in time to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, they are his biased supporters. The latter, however, though further away in time from the Wahhabi founder's period of existence, may - and indeed, do - have accurate information, especially on how Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teachings contradicted the teachings that orthodox Sunni Muslims had been following for over 1,000 years.

For example, Delong-Bas provides Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's interpretations of intercession (tawassul) in his "Kitab al-Tawhid" without stating that he contradicted many verses of the Qur'an, hadeeth, and interpretations provided by Sunni orthodox scholars (ulema) throughout the history of Islam (except Ibn Taymiyah and his followers who were the first to deviate from mainstream Sunni Islam on the issue). With an unorthodox interpretation of a genuinely valid Islamic practice, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab accuses the vast lot of Muslims who do 'tawassul' of committing polytheism (shirk) -- the only unforgivable sin in Islam. He then allows his followers to massacre them, believing that they are doing a very noble deed and following the footsteps of the Prophet Muhammad when, in fact, they are doing exactly the opposite.

From a source perspective, how, to any basic researcher, can this book be called a "pathbreaking" and "groundbreaking" work when sources for a book on Wahhabism are provided by Wahhabis, when the sources themselves are written by Wahhabis, and when the research endeavor is partially financed by Wahhabis? I'm sure you see how "objective" and "balanced" Delong-Bas's research is.

Contact me by e-mail for a more detailed unveiling of Delong-Bas's pseudo-scholarship and insult to the moderate/orthodox Muslims. (...)

Natana J. DeLong-Bas here writes the definitive book on the life and worldview of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.
What did Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab do which made him both feared and admired during his lifetime and so misunderstood now? Arguably, the 18th century scholar's most controversial achievement was to remind Muslims that "the Prophet Muhammad himself had expressly forbidden people to make graves places of celebration, or to venerate tombs and that prayer should never be conducted in a shrine, mausoleum or cemetery." It's hard to imagine, but when this rural Arabian scholar recalled this simple truth it sparked a firestorm that still rages to this day. Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab also believed in leading by example. In the city of al-Ayaynah a number of trees grew upon which the local Muslim populace would hang things in order to request the trees' blessing or intercession on their behalf. As was his way, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab talked to people about it first. He even pointed out how the act contradicted what was taught in the Quran. After a while he cut the largest "sacred" tree down. This practical application of Quranic philosophy desperately frightened and infuriated the people in power (in what is now Saudi Arabia) even though they claimed to be monotheistic.

Some other highlights of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's career that critics don't mention:

-Suggested that all Muslims read the Quran (surprisingly revolutionary at the time and angered the religious elite)
-Never promoted martyrdom
-Believed that literal rather than contextual interpretations of the Quran could be dangerous.
-Illuminated how archaic and unjust tribal laws governing things like property and the rights of women had subtly been woven into Islamic jurisprudence
-Denounced manipulation of religious authority for personal gain
-Spoke publicly about how land owners and the powerful manipulated the system under the guise of Islam to generate wealth and crush opposition.
-Advocated that the works of early Islamic scholar's be open to critique and criticism
-Believed that individual Muslims are responsible not only for his or her own faith but also the effects of his or her behavior on others
-Insisted that Muslims support one another and take serious what the Quran said about helping the poor.
-Taught that Muslims should evaluate the content of a Hadith (testimonies by Muhammad's companions and wives) with the teachings of the Quran and not merely rely on the interpretations of "experts".
-Rejected the notion that any person possessed secret, special or hidden knowledge of the Quran, even if they could trace their lineage back to the prophet Muhammad.
-Emphasized comprehension of the Quran over its memorization.
-Preferred conversion through education and dialogue and not violence
-Taught that fighting and war should only be used as a last resort.
-Showed that corruption and nepotism among the wealthy, political and religious hierarchy had a very real impact on every day people.
-Expressed that religious experts (ulama) should be able to back their opinions up, and not just rely on someone else's opinion who came before them.
-Taught that if a Hadith had a strong chain of transmitters but contradicted the Quran; it should be declared inauthentic
-Rejected imitation of the Islamic past and believed the distortion of historical reality could be dangerous.
-Considered himself a reformer and not a radical

What's worth noting is that in spite all of the criticism and denouncements and even perversions of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's beliefs, very few people actually take the time to investigate the historical record as Natana J. DeLong-Bas has. Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab rocked the status quo and challenged the prevailing power structure during his lifetime. The wealthy and powerful were particularly wary of him and when he wouldn't stay quiet about corruption they tried to bribe him, apostatize him, academically discredit him, defame him and even assassinate him. It's funny, but if you look at who feels most threatened by Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab today you might say that not much has changed.

This book is less about perceived modern bastardizations of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's worldview and more of a biographical profile of a simple, sensitive, inquisitive man who advocated for women, worked for social reform and firmly believed it was his duty as a Muslim to re-introduce simple, everyday Islamic practices to simple, everyday people. Natana J. DeLong-Bas writes convincingly and with passion about a person who has been completely misinterpreted and misunderstood by too many people to count. Here, finally, Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, gets a fair shake.

An important and well-executed work about the thought of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and not specifically about what is now called "wahhabism". Contrary to the way he is presented in current public and scholarly discourse, the author's Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab emerges as a moderate, enormously well read, progressive expounder and interpreter of Islamic doctrine. The founder of the Wahhabis was anything but the wild-eyed, puritanical naïf hailing from some remote sand-locked province of Muslimdom he is painted to be. Author Delong-Bas has accomplished what no western critics of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab--and eastern ones too for that matter--have ever attempted: she has actually read his work, all fourteen of his books along with his legal opinions. The weight of the evidence, then, is on her side. She has simply read her subject's own works and the historical record of his passing and reported what she found there. In so doing, she has rendered an invaluable service by distilling the works of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, which are difficult to obtain outside of Saudi Arabia, for readers who may in any case not be able to read the Arabic.

To convince doubters, of whom there will be many, the author embarks upon a detailed and methodical examination of the views of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab as recorded in his own voice and not as imputed to him by others. Her emphasis throughout is on the hot-button issues so dear to critics of all stripes, notably the principles of interpretation of the sacred texts, the rights of women, and the place of violence and jihad.

According to his own words and deeds, Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab preached and practiced flexibility in interpretation of Islamic doctrine, tolerance of different creeds alternative to it, and forbearance toward those who disagreed with his views or who apostatised. Accused of rigid literalism, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab to the contrary openly broke with exegetes, doctors of law, and compliers of Prophetic traditions whenever and wherever he found their pronouncements to be lacking in principled reasoning, based upon faulty interpretation, or displaying outright ignorance or dishonesty. He urged his followers and indeed all believers to practice these same principles to the furthest extent to which they were able.

Where it came to matters concerning relations between the sexes, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's inclination was always to assert the rights of women, according them more rights and less stricture in the conduct of their own affairs than he accorded to men. So too was he insistent upon women's right to participation in public life and access to public space. Underlying any of his judgments was his keen preoccupation with protecting and preserving human life and dignity. His written record demonstrates a consistent concern for such things. This hardly conforms to the image of Wahhabism that is bandied about nowadays, in which Wahhabis are portrayed as vicious misogynists. While there may be such types amongst Muslims, they cannot be called adherents of the thought of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

Neither can those who call for the indiscriminate killing of innocents and non-combatants, justifying this in the name of jihad. Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was very careful in his use of this term and set out clear guidelines for the proper conduct of armed struggle, largely employing the Arabic term qitaal `fighting' rather than jihad. The reason for that was that while there may be many good reasons for fighting, there are only a few situations in which fighting can be declared jihad. In those, and indeed in any other form of combat, strict parameters were to be observed as to how the fighting is to be conducted. One was that killing itself was to be kept to the absolute minimum. Indeed, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab specified only three situations in which jihad can legitimately be carried out, those being 1) when two groups of combatants (clearly, one Muslim and one not) meet face to face, 2) when an enemy leaves its own territory (intending aggression), and then 3) only if the spiritual leader of the community actually declares jihad (the imam, as distinguished from the amir, who is the political leader--an important distinction, as many latter-day jihadis swear their allegiance to an amir). When declared, jihad is only to be prosecuted until the enemy retreats. Women, children, the aged, and others who are incapable of fighting by means of infirmity or social status are not to be killed.

A flatter contradiction of conventional opinion could scarcely be imagined. In the face of all this, the inapt question, What went wrong? aimed scattershot at the entire Muslim world might profitably be redirected to the much narrower range of central Arabia. Neither the House of Saud nor the angry-eyed global Islamic radicals come out well in the author's portrayal of them. Both groups have perverted the nature of true Wahhabi doctrine (i.e., that propounded by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab himself) into narrow, literalistic interpretations of Islamic texts recruited to advance their own political agendas; for the Saudis, this was the conquest and consolidation of political rule in the Arabian peninsula and for the global jihadis it is purported to be the conquest of the world (although no-one knows for sure).

After the work of DeLong-Bas, it will simply be incorrect to tar Muslim conservatives with the brush of Wahhabism or indeed to condemn militants by branding them jihadis, as what they are endorsing is not jihad. The hidebound conservatism of some Muslim literalists or the ravings and horrendous deeds of maniacal psychopaths who happen to call themselves Muslims must now be awarded some other pejorative, as they are entirely inconsistent with the thought of the broad-minded reformer who was Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

This book will certainly be a boon to scholars, but it is to be hoped that it would also attract the attention of critics of Islam (whose arguments in any case can now be debunked for their not having read it) or indeed of the wider public.

Pure, paid apologetics from the Saudi government (read Delong-Bas's list of financial sponsors). There are MANY problems with her so-called "research" that have already been outlined by
reviewer Zubair Qamar. He so generously left the door open for you to email him further criticisms of her book.

How ever nice and benign she tries to make Abd Al-Wahhab, he is a rigid, tolerant cold-blooded killer. One of my personal favourites of hers , is Abd Al-Wahhab never called for "jihad" against the unbelievers only "qital" (fighting). And not to kill them but to "help" them give up their bad practices and adopt his way of thinking. His intentions were "good" and only wanted to "help" people see the proper Islam. Gimme a break!!!

Also she very nonchalantly says since Shi'a have raised their Imams to a semi-divine statues they are causing "shirk" (association with God). We all know how shirk should be dealt with = DEATH!! Unfortunately Abd Wahhabi didn't have any other choice but to kill all those deviant Shi'a because they associate their Imams with God. She made as well have written, you know Nazi's weren't all that bad, I mean, what choice did they have? After all it was the Jews who killed Jesus.

The verdict:
Her scholarship? Beyond the pale of poor
Her purse? paid off by the Saudi government to rehabilitate Wahhabi image
Her apologies? sickening and blood curdling

Best review I read:
[...]

The author provides interesting new source work by translating writings of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's that had not previously appeared in English. The translations deal with women and jihad. However, her argument that Osama Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and other extremist groups today aren't Wahhabist based strictly on their failure to adhere to the writings of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab is just strange. Though she acknowledges that the Wahhabi ulama co-opted Ibn Taymiyya's more aggressive view of jihad to justify the Saudi invasion of the Hijaz, she argues that Bin Laden is not a Wahhabist because his views are more on point with those of Ibn Taymiyya and Sayyed Qutb. She does the same thing with women, stating that the current state of women in Saudi Arabia is not attributable to Wahhabism because Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's writing indicate a more generous view of women, ignoring the fact that the Wahhabi ulama has co-opted these views on women into their ideology over time. Apparently the Wahhabi movement died with Ibn Abd al-Wahhab or the Wahhabists who currently legitimate the Saudi royal family aren't really Wahhabists, as, like Bin Laden, they don't adhere to the writings of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

If you'd like to read what Ibn Abd al-Wahhab had to say about women or jihad, buy the book. If you want a coherent argument about al-Qaeda's religious ideology, look elsewhere.

This author is Visiting Lecturer in Theology at Boston College. Written in 2004, hers is a 398 page overview of the life and writings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the foundations of the early Saudi kingdom. What was of most interest to this reviewer was the very original (and credible) discussion regarding the source of the contemporary focus on worldwide Jihad by Osama bin Laden and others of his ilk, which has been laid at the feet of Saudi Arabian Wahhabi Islamists in the Western media, but which Author DeLong-Bas indicates is actually derived from the historical thinking of 13th century thinker Ibm Taymayya and the 20th century thought of Sayyid Qutb. Although Lecturer DeLong-Bas can only be considered an apologist for Wahhabi Islam, generally, and while it would also be important to critically review the many other scholarly materials which are available regarding this important and timely topic, her detailed and well-researched work was very informative, as to the historic and present particularisms of this, a subset of contemporary Islamic thought.

First off, full disclosure...I am a muslim. However, I am a rational liberal minded muslim as most are in the United States. Prior to reading this book, I did not know anything about Abdul Wahab. All I know is that the extremist of my religion are often called "Wahabbis." Therefore, I wanted to learn more about this man.

I was surprised after reading the book, that Abdul Wahab was actually more rational than anyone ever gives him credit for. Moreover, the extremist of today ARE NOT practicing what the man taught. For example, he was not against Sufi's (Ibn Tamiya himself was a Sufi). He was against certain acts that the Sufi's of that time were doing. Also, he did not promote pre-emptive jihad on people. He believed in defensive Jihad. The contradictions go on and on.

If there is a downside to the book, I would have to say that it is the lack of critisim of both Abdul Wahab and Saudi Arabia. A previous reviewer stated that Natana Long was funded by Saudi Arabia to write this book. Therefore, there is a inherent conflict of interest in this book. I HAVE NO IDEA IF THAT IS TRUE, however, the fact that there was not one negative thing mentioned about both Abdul Wahab and Saudi Arabia seems strange. Where theres smoke, theres fire, so I would expect at least some critique of them.

All in all, the book served its purpose. It gave me a fairly good high level overview of a man that is talked about today. I was actually surprised how deep she got on certain Islamic legal rulings and the rational behind them.

It is very unfortunate that Oxford press decided to publish a book that is basically an apologetic work on the Wahhabi movement in particular, the life and writings of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab.

It is clear from the classical Sunni sources during Ibn Abdul Wahhab's time up until now, that the Wahhabi movement is far from being a reform movement. From the it's very inception, the Sunni mainstream scholars condemned this movement as not being part of the mainstream orthodox community. Over two hundred works have been written by top level scholars to refute this movement's teachings and doctrine.

If you look at the sources in this book, it is primarily from Saudi Pro-Wahhabi sanitized revisionist history and apologetic works, not the mainstream criticisms of this movement by a vast list of literature.

People who read this book who do not have detailed research on this topic will come out thinking Wahhabism was a good thing. This is contrary to what mainstream Muslim scholars have said.

First, this book is not about modern politics of terrorism or jihadi war or whatever, but it is about Ibn al-Wahhab and his writings.

Although the previous reviewer makes some very important points that call into doubt some of the author's choices of sources, I still feel that this is a very dynamic and thorough brush on this topic.

First, the book does not pretend to discuss the merits of those extremists who think they are or are labeled "Wahhabists" in the modern world, nor does it discuss what others currently view or percieve "Wahhabism" to be. Thankfully, such topics are not considered as they are highly political.

What is considered is the views, rulings, and opinions of the man who founded what is today, in my opinion, not "Wahhabism", but simply a more unifying and simplistic view of Islamic belief. The books demonstrates that the term "Wahhabism" is a complex term, and that the ideas of Ibn al-Wahhab were quite well developed. He was not an extremist or fundamentalists or zealot, but simply a religious interpreter who's views are often misunderstood. The books also shows, through its in-depth discussion of Wahhab's views, that the extremist and militant movements of today often labeled or known as "Wahhabism" should be called, and the author has firmly convinced me of this, Tamiyaism, who was a medieval islamic scholar that is cited by extremists as much as Wahhab.

I do not pretend to be a scholar on Islamic theology and thought, but this book is a great source for understanding the foundation beliefs of Islam and the interpreting view of Ibn al-Wahhab. He was a man that was principly concerned with "shirk", which was considered falsely believing in something. This was a concern similar to the iconoclast in Eastern Byzantine Orthodox in the middle ages. Here an example that concerned Wahhab was muslims praying to a certain tree, which he regarded as praying to something other than god.

The author writes very fluidly and does cite from Wahhab's works extensively and also does an analysis of Wahhab's own citations of preceeding islamic scholars in his original works, highlighting who he most often agreed/disagreed with.

I highly recommend this book for people with at least a basic understanding of Islamic thought such as Hadiths, Surahs, Fiqh, and the doctrine of Tawhid and even Sufiism and its veils.

I encourage the other reviewer to at least suggest some more books on the topic that can further clarify this topic.