The 'Wahhabi' Nemesis.doc

1. The 'Wahhabi' Nemesis: Exposing those responsible for terror in the UK
08-07-07
By Abdul-Haq al-Ashanti
The attempted suicide bomb attack on Glasgow Airport last week and the discovery of
cars packed with amateur bombs has again stunned the UK and plagued the Muslim
community. As British Muslims come to terms with this present danger many struggle to
assess what the root causes for these terrorist problems are. After 7/7 there was much talk
of 'engaging' with hard to reach disenfranchised young Muslims from 'Muslim ghettoes'
in Britain with discussion revolving around foreign policy grievances - erroneous
arguments used by extremist-terrorist Muslim groups to justify their crooked actions.
However, the recent events have demonstrated that one should neither be hasty in
attempting to diagnose the root causes of this manifestation of extremism nor simplistic
in assessing the ideological impetus for terrorists. During the Glasgow Airport attempted
attack, it was interesting to see how all of the news agencies were quick to place the
blame on 'Asians', with even eye-witnesses boldly laying the blame at 'Asian men', even
though it has now emerged that the suspects are mostly Arabs. At the same time the arm-
chair analysts, from the Muslims and the non-Muslims, have been quick to point the
finger at 'Salafi-Wahhabis' as being the cause before any information about the suspects
had been released, let alone an in-depth understanding of their Islamic beliefs and
ideology. So for example, we have unfortunately witnessed a number of self-made
analysts who have suddenly put themselves forward to comment and make these
allegations with no evidence whatsoever. An example is Ed Husain, whose Islamic
knowledge seems rather scant to say the least; he audaciously pronounced on BBC News
24 this Monday that 'Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia have been spreading this extremist
ideology' yet the revelation that the suspects in the recent wave of attempted car
bombings were qualified and educated doctors and well-integrated totally rubbishes those
who assert that extremism has been festering within 'Muslim ghettoes of the UK' and
spread the highly simplistic and rather unsophisticated Wahhabi blame-game.
Vague open-ended claims does absolutely nothing in helping to solve the very serious
issue of extremism and terrorism. There have been a number of studies which have
challenged the simplistic method of branding Muslims as 'Wahhabis' and the best
research on this are: Dr Natan De Long Bas, Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform
to Global Jihad (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004); Jalal AbualRub, Alaa
Mencke (ed.), The Biography of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (Orlando, Florida:
Madinah Publishers, 1424 AH/2003 CE); James Haneef Oliver, The Wahhabi Myth:
Dispelling Prevalent Fallacies and the Fictitious Link with Bin Laden (Trafford
Publishing, 2003) and the well researched paper entitled Does Saudi Arabia Preach
Intolerance in the UK and the US? - a detailed research paper compiled by Salafi
researchers at the website SalafiManhaj.com.
Firstly, what these researchers and many others have observed is that many of the main
extremist ideologues around the world have had total enmity towards Saudi Arabia. For
example, the likes of Bin Laden, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, Abu Qatadah, Abdullah

2. Faisal, Omar Bakri, Abu Hamza, Abu Mus'ab Zarqawi and Ayman adh-Dhawahiri are all
united on their hatred of Saudi Arabia. Dr Natana DeLong-Bas superbly states in chapter
six of her book Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad: quot;The global
jihad espoused by Osama bin Laden and other contemporary extremists is clearly rooted
in contemporary issues and interpretations of Islam. It owes little to the Wahhabi
tradition, outside of the nineteenth-century incorporation of the teachings of Ibn
Taymiyya and the Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah into the Wahhabi worldview as
Wahhabism moved beyond the confines of Najd and into the broader Muslim world. The
differences between the worldviews of bin Laden and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab are numerous.
Bin Laden preaches jihad; Ibn Abd al-Wahhab preached monotheism. Bin Laden
preaches a global jihad of cosmic importance that recognizes no compromise; Ibn Abd al-
Wahhab's jihad was narrow in geographic focus, of localized importance, and had
engagement in a treaty relationship between the fighting parties as a goal. Bin Laden
preaches war against Christians and Jews; Ibn Abd al-Wahhab called for treaty
relationships with them. Bin Laden's jihad proclaims an ideology of the necessity of war
in the face of unbelief; Ibn Abd al-Wahhab preached the benefits of peaceful coexistence,
social order, and business relationships. Bin Laden calls for the killing of all infidels and
the destruction of their money and property; Ibn Abd al-Wahhab restricted killing and the
destruction of property... The militant Islam of Osama bin Laden does not have its origins
in the teachings of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and is not representative of Wahhabi Islam as it is
practiced in contemporary Saudi Arabia, yet for the media it has come to define Wahabbi
Islam in the contemporary era. However, quot;unrepresentativequot; bin Laden's global jihad of
Islam in general and Wahhabi Islam in particular, its prominence in headline news has
taken Wahhabi Islam across the spectrum from revival and reform to global jihad.quot;1
It would also be of use here to note the statement of Hamza Yusuf who fundamentally
disagrees with the Salafis. Hamza Yusuf stated in an interview with Riz Khan on al-
Jazeera English on 13 June 2007: quot;First of all, I definitely am not a Wahhabi. I wasn't
trained in that school. I don't like Wahhabism; but I have to be fair and this kind of
blanket attack on the Wahhabis as being the source of all evil in the world - I don't buy
that kind of black and white cartoon scenario of reality. First of all, people should
remember that the Wahhabi 'Ulama (scholars) have consistently condemned terrorism,
suicide bombing; and Shaykh Bin Baaz of Saudi Arabia, years ago before it was popular,
was one of the few voices in the Muslim world that was condemning terrorism and
particularly suicide bombing irrespective of where it was, because many of the scholars I
think waffle on this issue and they'll be against suicide bombing for instance in America
or in Great Britain and they'll condemn 7/7 or 9/11, but they won't condemn suicide
bombing in Palestine. Whereas the Saudi 'Ulama have consistently opposed that, so I
don't think that it's fair to do that. The problem with Wahhabism is when you get a
political revolutionary ideology combined with Wahhabism - that's a quite frightening
partnership there and I think that's what happened, but a lot of these so-called Wahhabis
that are out there doing whatever nefarious deeds they're doing, then these people are
actually anathematised by the Saudi scholars and I think that the Saudi government has
consistently been against terrorism. I mean I don't like the brand of Islam particularly
they're spreading but you have to be fair to people.quot; There are a number of points to
append to this statement of Hamza Yusuf as it combines between both what is true and

3. what is false. From the false aspects of this statement is:
His use of the simplistic words quot;Wahhabiquot; and quot;Wahhabismquot; without even defining what
it is. He is regurgitating the simplistic colonial terminologies that were used by the
British in India.
It is not really a sign of tolerance to state that one does not like a thing when one does not
even know what it is. Hence, for Hamza Yusuf to say: quot;I don�t like Wahhabismquot;, is odd
as he has not even defined what it is he does not like.
From the correct statements that Hamza Yusuf mentioned here were:
The simplistic attack on Saudi Arabia and its scholars as being the source of the
contemporary terrorist agenda.
That the Saudi scholars have consistently condemned terrorism and those who call to it.
That Imam Bin Baaz warned against and condemned terrorism before it became a fashion
trend among Muslims to do so.
That Imam Bin Baaz had a consistent manhaj (methodology) which did not change from
country to country. So whereas some condemn 9/11 and 7/7 they will not condemn
suicide bombings in Palestine and other places in the Muslim world.
It is thus necessary for people to judge affairs on a knowledge-based perspective if they
wish to be seen as accurate and fair. What must be avoided is for blame to be levelled
against those who are innocent; on the contrary tirelessly worked for decades towards the
eradication of extremism within the Muslim community.
1 Natana DeLong Bas, Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp.278-279