23 May 2011 By Mshari Al-Zaydi Salafism has become a terrifying bogeyman which is
being used to frighten everybody during this
tumultuous stage in Arab history. The latest innovation in this respect is what the
Syrian authorities have claimed about the Salafists,
namely that they intend to establish an Islamic
Salafist emirate in the southern city of Daraa. This
means that the Syrian regime is now directing its
tools of suppression at these "savage" Salafists. In Egypt, the chief subject of discussion by the
revolutions new intellectuals is the threat of
Salafism, and whether the Salafists are tools of the
counter-revolutions or whether they are remnants of
the former regime. In other words, people are now
wondering whether these Salafists are an invention, or
whether they are a genuine Egyptian phenomenon? Such questions and concerns increased following the
strong presence of Salafists throughout Egyptian towns
and cities, as well as their strong influence during
the constitutional referendum. In addition to this,
there has been a strong response to the Friday sermons
of one of the top Salafist preachers in Cairo, Sheikh
Muhammad Hussein Yaqoub, as well as the Salafist trend
adopting the case of "Camillia", the young Egyptian
Coptic woman who converted to Islam and was allegedly
kidnapped by the [Coptic] Church. This resulted in
reprisals which saw one Copt being assaulted and
having his ear cut off, in addition to a campaign to
remove Qena governorate's Coptic governor, as well as
a number of unveiled women being attacked. Before going any further, we must clarify and
confirm that the phenomenon known as Salafism, which I
like to describe as the strict fundamentalist Sunni
trend, is a real phenomenon and trend that exists in
Arab societies. This is not a government "invention"
as many non-religious Arab intellectuals describe it.
These intellectuals are, naturally, less aware of the
nature of religion and the power of religion in Arab
societies, which can be seen in long-bearded sheikhs
preaching about the after-life, hell, paradise, as
well as what is Halal [lawful] and Haram [unlawful] in
simple and easy to understand language. Arab society
seeks sanctuary from the trials and temptations of
this life, and from the dangers of angering God, and
the religious Sheiks and their rhetoric is a response
to these genuine feelings that are embedded in Arab
and Muslim societies. Arab societies are strongly in
touch with their religious dimensions, and there has
never been a practical shift in the nature of this
relationship. Looking at and dealing with this
relationship critically and scientifically remains the
monopoly of secular Arab elites, who are a minority.
This is an indisputable and consummate fact. It is
impossible to argue that the Arab regimes, those which
have been toppled or are on the verge of collapse,
have created this phenomenon. No regime is capable of
such a feat even if it could do the impossible.
Religious beliefs and convictions are deeply ingrained
in the hearts and minds of people in the Arab world.
Regimes may try to benefit or exploit this religious
belief, but this belief has always existed, whether
the political authority is present or not. This is a point that must be stressed, as many are
attempting to spread lies about former Arab regimes,
saying they are solely responsible for creating this
phenomenon of social religion, in addition to [being
responsible for the creation of] organizations of
religious violence like Al Qaeda. However such talk is
not believable! There can be no doubt that Salafist and
fundamentalist [religious] trends, in general, are
forces that resist modernization and development. Arab
societies have suffered as a result of this resistance
[to modernization], especially with regards to issues
relating to women and sectarian tolerance. However it
is still important to investigate the nature of these
religious trends to try to understand them and how to
deal with them. Does this rush to blame everything on the Salafists
mean that the Muslim Brotherhood is completely
innocent, and is not trying to politicize religion?
Aren't the Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood both
fish swimming in the same stream? In this case, why
are the fishing hooks of criticism exclusively
targeting the Salafist fish at this current stage? There can be no doubt that this is a situation that
the Muslim Brotherhood across the Arab world did not
expect, namely to see their image being cleaned up and
polished whilst the darts of criticism are passing
them by and are instead being directed at the
Salafists. This is a situation that particularly
applies to Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood is
experiencing a golden age, enjoying a clear alliance
with the new military rulers of the country. Therefore
a new "[religious] fundamentalist scapegoat" needed to
be found to be blamed for backwardness and fanaticism,
and the Salafists were chosen to fulfil this role,
after decades and decades of the Muslim Brotherhood
being portrayed as the "devil." In an article
published last week [24/4/2011] by the Al-Hayat
newspaper, Hani Darwish described the Muslim
Brotherhood's delight at no longer being the subject
of criticism, with this criticism now being aimed at
the Salafists, as well as the Salafists disagreements
with the Sufis and the Al-Azhar University. Darwish
wrote that "the Muslim Brotherhood is patiently
feeding this blazing fire with a smile of revenge.
Salafists are preparing the ground for the forthcoming
parliamentary elections battle in the interests of
religious polarization that will best serve their
candidates. Hundreds of thousands of Salafists and
millions of Sufis will quickly overcome their juristic
differences in order to ensure the victory of Islam,
as represented by the Muslim Brotherhood's political
candidates, in opposition to democratic, liberal,
security, Coptic, or women candidates, not to mention
the remnants of the former governing party and the
enemies of the revolution." What is truly regrettable is that some sober-minded
intellectuals in Egypt have contributed to creating
this false image and have organized a campaign whose
sole purpose is to improve the reputation of the
Muslim Brotherhood, whilst demonizing the Salafists.
Prominent Egyptian intellectual Gaber Asfour, who
dealt with the recent developments in the country in a
volatile and unpredictable manner, wrote an article on
the issue of Salafism in Egypt's "Akhbar El-Yom"
newspaper last week [23/4/2011] claiming that the
Salafists were responsible for bringing backwardness
and religious fundamentalism in Egypt, in addition to
Islamizing the economy and medicine. In this article,
Asfour wrote that "[this was] away from the
Islamization of science which we imported from the
Wahabi school of thought, and the religious sheikhs
that operate in the manner of the sheikhs under the
rule of [former president of Pakistan] Muhammad
Zia-ul-Haq." Here I would like to comment on the words of the
"researcher and intellectual" [Gaber Asfour]. His view
that Salafism, as we know it today, is extremely
strict is indisputable, at least from my point of
view, however his allegation that "Wahabi" Salafist
led to the "Islamization of science" and the invention
of an Islamic economy is a falsification of history
and reality. We all know that Salafist has nothing to
do with any of this. It was the Muslim Brotherhood who
were interested in such issues, according to the
belief that "Islam is the religion and the state"
according to the slogan of [Muslim Brotherhood
founder] Hassan al-Bana. It was the Muslim
Brotherhood, and those within their orbit, namely the
International Institute of Islamic Thought [IIIT], who
were responsible for this. This was the birth-place of
the idea of the Islamization of science and knowledge,
as well as the creation of an Islamic economy, it is
also worth mentioning that those that sponsored the
idea mentioned above were not of the Wahabi Salafist
trend. Muslim Brotherhood Islamist intellectuals in
Egypt made a major contribution to the creation of
this Islamic economy, but now is not the time to
tackle this issue in detail. The Muslim Brotherhood was responsible for showing
the Salafists how to modernize and engage in politics.
Moroccan researcher Mohammed Nabil Malin, in his
important book "Islamic Scholars" about the religious
class in Saudi Arabia, describes the clash that took
place between the Saudi religious establishment and
the active Islamic "Sahwa" movement during Saddam
Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. He writes "Saudi
Islamists were shocked, in much of their ideology a
section of this group relied on a blend between 19th
century Wahabi Hanbali ideology and anti-imperial
positions, in addition to the Muslim Brotherhood's
conspiracy theory towards the political authority and
religious establishment." However this contravenes my
own knowledge of the existence of Saudi reservations
regarding the definition of Wahabism. Malin went on to talk about the Al Qaeda
organization, stressing that despite it employing the
Islamic al-Walaa and al-Baraa doctrine [Allegiance and
Disownment] "the Al Qaeda organization do not favour
any precise doctrine in the juristic field." He added
"in the field of politics, whether consciously or
subconsciously, Al Qaeda adopted the Muslim
Brotherhood ideology, especially those followed by the
[Sayyid] Qutb trend. Osama Bin Laden practically grew
up following the Muslim Brotherhood." In essence, Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim Brotherhood
/ Qutbist product with Salafist garnish. Abu Muhammad
Asem al-Maqdisi utilized Salafism to establish a
heritage based upon the Muslim Brotherhood Qutbist
idea of "guardianship." This is the focus of Sayyid
Qutb's rhetoric. I would like to conclude by saying that it is
scientifically and morally shameful to suddenly switch
from one direction to another, with regards to all the
criticisms we have heard from these people who are
today "exclusively" criticizing Salafism and Salafists,
whilst previously they criticized the Muslim
Brotherhood as being the mother of all contemporary
[religious] fundamentalist movements, simply because
the Muslim Brotherhood has now gained political
leverage. They have turned their attack on the
Salafist trend, despite the fact that the term
Salafism itself includes huge historical and
methodological ambiguities, as Mohammed Nabil Malin
pointed out. If those criticizing Salafism were truly fair, they
would loudly and clearly admit that the only
difference between Salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood
is one of degree, not of nature. I personally believe
that the defects within the Muslim Brotherhood
ideology are grater than those within Salafism,
despite the fact that the Salafists are now suffering
more... Comments 💬 التعليقات |