Comments on: Pakistani magazine article: The Saudi-is…

By: Omar

Omar — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:37:18 +0000

I attended a talk by Dr. Metcalf at college here (Dublin, Eire). She’s an intelligent and knowledgeable person.

By: Len

Len — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:09:25 +0000

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.

By: johnpi

johnpi — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:10:36 +0000

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.

By: abunoor

abunoor — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:55:39 +0000

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.

By: sa.c

sa.c — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:45:34 +0000

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.

By: johnpi

johnpi — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:42:56 +0000

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.

By: sa.c

sa.c — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:36:06 +0000

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).

By: abunoor

abunoor — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:27:44 +0000

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).

By: abunoor

abunoor — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:20:34 +0000

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.

By: johnpi

johnpi — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:07:56 +0000

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…