Muslim blogger Mujahideen Ryder links to the following report:
The Royal Islamic Strategies Studies Centre in Jordan and the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in America released a publication entitled “The 500 Most Influential Muslims” recently.</blockquote
Click here for .pdf of the whole report.
MR discusses the strong anti-salafi bias of some of the reports background text. Lists are always interesting.
One thing that jumped out at me is that the list names 116 of the 500 most influential muslims as being from the US, Canada, or UK. That means 23 percent of the names they list are from those three countries, although only 0.4 percent of the world’s Muslims live in one of those countries, according to the reports’ own estimates.
I think I personally know, meaning they know me as well, about 12 of the people on the list, that’s pretty good right? (and I’m not including Shahed Amanullah in that 12, can I include you Shahed?)
There is much that’s a bit strange about the report and list, as far as I’m concerned, but like I said lists are always fun.
Also, they include the well respected Canadian Academic Wael Hallaq. I always understood he was Christian.
abunoor 12:37 pm on November 18, 2009 Permalink |
They have a category called “Radicals” but don’t include anyone from the U.S. in that category.
I thought that was my best chance to make the list.
abunoor 12:39 pm on November 18, 2009 Permalink |
Americans in the Top 50:
38. Hamza Yusuf
47. Seyyed Hossein Nasr
Keith Ellison and Dr. Ingrid Mattson are “honorable mention”‘ which means the authors basically consider them “as influential” as the top 50 but they weren’t in the actual top 50.
Buzz 1:08 pm on November 18, 2009 Permalink |
Anwar Al-Awlaki didn’t make the list?
Shocking :-0
abunoor 1:16 pm on November 18, 2009 Permalink |
Like any list, the list is strange and includes people for a variety of reasons.
I don’t know for sure if al-Awlaki is one of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world (the word influential is a tricky word anyways) but I know for sure that he is more influential than many of the names that are included.
Of course, again, people are more or less well known (are they really talking influential, or just prominent?) in different circles, no doubt. If I put together the 50 most influential Muslims on me or on Muslims I know, it would obviously be a lot different.
shahed 4:36 pm on November 18, 2009 Permalink |
Of course you can include me. I (like you) am still poring over the report and trying to figure out the methodology behind these selections. I sent emails to the 20 or 30 people I knew on the list and more than half didn’t even know about the report.
willow 4:46 pm on November 18, 2009 Permalink |
We’re still proud of you.
Rabiya 4:29 pm on November 21, 2009 Permalink |
I can’t take seriously anything that come from official mouth pieces like this. Oh, royals in the top? How surprising, given that the report comes from the royal family of Jordan! Also, why isn’t Osama on there? Yeah he’s a bad, bad man, but I’d say he’s influenced a LOT.
abunoor 10:20 pm on November 21, 2009 Permalink |
Rabiya,
I agree with your skepticism of both the Jordanian royal involvement and the top of the list listing of all the monarchs.
Are you asking why bin Laden isn’t in the top 50? ‘Cause he is in the list of 500, actually.
johnpi 8:58 am on November 30, 2009 Permalink |
Blogger Rob criticizes the fact that 33 of the top 50 are clerics, and the lack of businessmen/investors:
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 9:20 am on November 30, 2009 Permalink |
I think one expects a bias toward religious figures when one explicitly makes the list about religion. More jarring is the list of royals at the top of the list, although it is of course important to note that these are countries where royals actually do wield power and are not just figureheads. Influence is a funny thing, and could be defined in even more ways than “most valuable player.”
johnpi 9:49 am on November 30, 2009 Permalink |
I was primed for looking at the list in terms of religion, but found many listed that didn’t seem to be influential as Muslims in a field, but whose only qualification was that they were Muslims.
For example, ‘Dr. Oz’ is listed in science and technology for North America:
By this broader standard, more on the business/investor side should have been included, but overall, I agree about the peculiar and subjective nature of ‘influence.’