Pakistani magazine article: The Saudi-isation of Pakistan.
Soldiers, policemen, factory and hospital workers, mourners at funerals and ordinary people praying in mosques have all been reduced to globs of flesh and fragments of bones. But, perhaps paradoxically, in spite of the fact that the dead bodies and shattered lives are almost all Muslim ones, few Pakistanis speak out against these atrocities. Nor do they approve of the army operation against the cruel perpetrators of these acts because they believe that they are Islamic warriors fighting for Islam and against American occupation. Political leaders like Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan have no words of solace for those who have suffered at the hands of Islamic extremists. Their tears are reserved exclusively for the victims of Predator drones, even if they are those who committed grave crimes against their own people. Terrorism, by definition, is an act only the Americans can commit.
….Villages have changed drastically; this transformation has been driven, in part, by Pakistani workers returning from Arab countries. Many village mosques are now giant madrassas that propagate hard-line Salafi and Deobandi beliefs through oversized loudspeakers. They are bitterly opposed to Barelvis, Shias and other sects, who they do not regard as Muslims. The Punjabis, who were far more liberal towards women than the Pukhtuns, are now beginning to take a line resembling that of the Taliban. Hanafi law has begun to prevail over tradition and civil law, as is evident from the recent decisions of the Lahore High Court.
….Pakistan’s self-inflicted suffering comes from an education system that, like Saudi Arabia’s system, provides an ideological foundation for violence and future jihadists. It demands that Islam be understood as a complete code of life, and creates in the mind of a school-going child a sense of siege and embattlement by stressing that Islam is under threat everywhere.

Len 3:51 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
John, given your positions, I’m a little surprised you didn’t excerpt this instead:
In any case, I’m not sure that propagation of Deobandi teachings is “Saudi-isation”…maybe only in the sense that it’s socially conservative. In terms of beliefs and practice, it’s somewhat different, and it seems to have a distinctly Pakistani tint on it.
johnpi 4:31 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
True and true.
In retrospect, I would have excerpted exactly that part.
I’m actually not happy with the way I excerpted this at all. This was an article where perhaps less, and more concise excerpting would have been more…
johnpi 4:37 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
The part about the predator drones and killing of Muslims by extremists was an insight to me when considered in the context of the questions around serving in the US military, which relates back to the still emotional Fort Hood shooting and it threw my judgment off…
abunoor 6:58 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
Yeah, Deoband is a city in India, not KSA.
johnpi 8:07 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
A Google search on the term “Deobandi Wahhabi” turned up 6,960 results. Apparently, the two have gotten married and now have a hypenate name, at least in Pakistan.
The Pakistani professor may know more about her country than we do…
sa.c 8:36 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
Hoodbhoy is a him and he’s a physics professor btw. This “Saudi-ization” is a little more complex than he makes it out to be. I like Manan’s argument in that it is more “Sunnification post-Zia” than anything else (via Chapati Mystery). Deobandi’s are “native” to South Asia, even if they are quite orthodox in their practice. They also largely follow a Hanafi school of jurisprudence (which is rather the norm in most of South Asia – but not all), whereas (at least what I am told) Wahhabi’s consider themselves to be followers of Ibn Hanbal. Last I heard, there was no such marriage of the two, and those belonging to both groups would probably agree with that. In India and Pakistan, Deobandi’s keep their own ulema and theological colleges quite distinct from those of other groups (and I imagine they would exclude Wahhabis as well). Also, Deobandi’s and Barelwi’s have had serious tensions way before “Wahabbi’s” or “Salafi’s” entered the South Asian scene via returned guest workers. Communalism is an age old problem in the region. Hoodbhoy seems to be influenced by the idea that has been made popular by, among many others, William Dalrymple (he’s attempted to link the 1857 rebellions by Muslims and Hindu’s to these modern day Wahhabi groups, which is an oversimplification considering that most Indian Muslims back in the day were likely more influenced by Naqshbandi’s, Chishti’s, Qadiri’s).
Len 11:09 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink
I thought they all followed Hanafi jurisprudence and Maturidi aqidah…so in that sense, they’re not the same as Salafis at all.
My impression is that that Deobandis are THE premier source for Hanafi fiqh…I mean I haven’t looked too hard, but I don’t know of too many non-Deobandi scholars schooled in the Hanafi madhab. Maybe they just seem over-represented in the West.
abunoor 8:20 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
John, cmon.
6,960 on Google, wow! Of course “progressive fascist” gets 7, 250. Maybe Jonah Goldberg knows more about his country than we do. Or maybe the fact that certain people use a term doesn’t actually mean the term cannot be critiqued.
To lump together all forms or religiously observant or even socially conservative practices together and give them a bogeyman name like “wahhabi” and imply that of course they must come from outside our country, appealing to some kind of xenophobic impulse that always wants to credit everything negative to being from “them”‘ and not truly from “us” is a problematic practice though it is used often on the left and the right, by religious and secular people.
Do you know anything about the theology, fiqh and history of Deoband, John?
I am not saying that Deobandi and Salafi ideas share nothing in common…I am just against simplistic name calling analysis. That’s all.
johnpi 8:42 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
LOL. Touche. Jonah Goldberg.
But seriously, your critique is to the author of the piece, not me. And I know Wahhabi is considered offensive, even though is has come into such common usage.
But I don’t think you can refute the fact of the professor’s usage or all the usages of the term in hyphenate or compound form arising from Pakistani blogs and websites. i suspect that what were dealing with here is a usage that may be restricted to Sunni moderates, Shia and Sufi.
abunoor 8:55 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
Actually John, I feel bad that my original comment was wrong to dismiss the whole argument and I am not saying there is nothing to the argument….but as I stated above I really do think that this use of Wahhabi as both a name calling device and as something which attempts always to take religious interpretations or practices one doesn’t like and make them “foreign” is problematic and should be challenged although it is common among those who consider themselves “moderates.” So, they may be describing a real phenomenon, and even a phenomenon that has negative aspects that should be challenged but it needs to be done in a more sophisticated way.
johnpi 9:10 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
You’re completely within your rights to call it. The Wahhabi thing is a continual source of miscommunication. Some use it for sectarian reasons, some for ‘enemy formation’, some don’t know it’s not neutral and some use it to differentiate ‘good salafi’ from ‘bad salafi.’ And now you’ve described another use – for purposes of ‘othering,’ or making something foreign.
And I always appreciate your talent for rhetoric, debate and argument, important tools in your trade, no doubt.
abunoor 8:27 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
I would recommend “Islamic Revivalism in British India: Deoband 1860-1900 by Barbara Daly Metcalf (Oxford India Paperbacks) and “The Ulama in Contemporary Islam: Custodians of Change” by Muhammad Qasim Zaman (Princeton Studies in Muslim Politics).
sa.c 8:45 pm on November 11, 2009 Permalink |
Yes! exactly this! If I may add one more, Annemarie Schimmel also has a really good book titled “Islam in the Indian Subcontinent” which introduces the reader to the complex and varied terrain of Islamic thought and practice throughout the ages in South Asia. She also argues that the staunch orthodoxy of South Asian Islam has more to do with Islamic revivalists such as Ahmad Sirhindi (opposing Akbar’s syncretism) and Shah Waliullah – The latter having influenced the arab world more than the other way around.
Omar 12:37 pm on November 12, 2009 Permalink |
I attended a talk by Dr. Metcalf at college here (Dublin, Eire). She’s an intelligent and knowledgeable person.