“English Islam” and the “Wahaabi” Scapegoat

Interesting reading..



The deformation of Islam has not always had its roots in what are today clearly identifiable subversive “reform Muslims” and organisations. Traditional Ulama (Islamic scholars) have been politically exploited to provide the means by which neocons can push their agenda to deconstruct Islam.  These “moderate” scholars would provide the legitimising face behind which lurked an insidious agenda to deform Islam into what Cheryl Bernard’s RAND corporation publication would call a “democratised Islam”; a postmodernist faith devoid of substance or meaning.

The push for the creation of a “British Islam” during the late 2000s was rooted in an underlying aim to create an “institutionally approved, ‘mainstream’, and ‘moderate’ expression of Islam”, which, through state-funded Muslim organisations (like Radical Middle Way and National Muslim Women’s Advisory Group), would “engineer if not exact power” in the Muslim community. Of course, scholars that had initially given backing to such organisations have now distanced themselves from…

View original post 2,407 more words

Categories: Islam

4 replies

  1. I only had time to glance at that article.

    Yes, we need to be cautious of what the author of the article says but the author seems to be wearing blinders as to the cultural biases and sectarian and political biases of the ahl al hadith and other groups in creating a particular worldview through which the Qur’an is interpreted and through which secondary sources such as hadith and even further compilations of humans is raised to the level of God’s word.

    It is documented how ahl al hadith and their political ally in the ruthless caliph Mutawakil quashed pious Muslim scholars who advocated the primacy of reason as articulated in the Qur’an.

    The author and those who think in his narrow way needs some heavy dose of caution in not allowing medieval biases of particular groups like ahl al hadith simultaneously with the reasonable advice he also provides.

    Caution in one way is ONLY one direction as the author prescribes is a recipe for continued violation of the using our reason which God commands each of us to use to the fullest (albeit with us keeping humility) in the Qur’an commands us in many, many verses.

    The biases of fallible medieval scholars is a priori not examined with rigor….as usual. Sigh. Looking into and discussing biases of scholars who we respect and admire is not tantamount to disrespecting them but only recognizing the context of their human condition.


  2. I don’t think Shaykh Murad has done any scapegoating, his portrayal is pretty accurate of Wahhabi types. It’s pretty normal for them (and have personally encountered many) who say things like “jeans are haraam as they imitate kufaar” and other nonsense. The fact that he brings Ghazali to show imitating the Prophet is pious is irrelevant to the point at hand, as wahhabis regularly say dressing any other way is prohibited, not that dressing that way is pious.


  3. Whether one likes it or not the Wahhabi ideology is in principle untenable fiqh-wise and aqidah-wise. The Saudis realized this early on and in the end adapted and abused the Hanbali methodology to suit their own purposes. The scapegoating of the Wahhabis is not just not the fault of politically exploited scholars as some might contend. The Wahhabis, for all their denunciations of imitating the kuffar, themselves imitate the object of their denunciation be it in their excommunication of fellow Muslims or their mad rush consuming and wasting the resources bestowed upon them. Their main political sponsor is currently involved in dangerous games of war. The dissonance,bothering on hypocrisy, could be noticed by a reflective layman.

    The only important and relevant point to be taken from the article is the danger of cooperating too closely with governmental authorities themselves hiding their own agendas from others including their own electorate. The scholars in their efforts to quell the influence of insidious sects, should not in their own turn be co-opted by forces just as insidious if not more so. A lot of times these forces themselves opened the Pandora’s box and when they could not manage it, they try to delegate to others.


  4. My mistake: *bordering on hypocrisy


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: