What do you think?
Rate this book
Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad
Before 9/11, few Westerners had heard of Wahhabism. Today, it is a household word. Frequently mentioned in association with Osama bin Laden, Wahhabism is portrayed by the media and public officials as an intolerant, puritanical, militant interpretation of Islam that calls for the wholesale destruction of the West in a jihad of global proportions. In the first study ever undertaken of the writings of Wahhabism's founder, Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1702-1791), Natana DeLong-Bas shatters these stereotypes and misconceptions. Her reading of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's works produces a revisionist thesis: Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was not the godfather of contemporary terrorist movements. Rather, he was a voice of reform, reflecting mainstream 18th-century Islamic thought. His vision of Islamic society was based upon a monotheism in which Muslims, Christians and Jews were to enjoy peaceful co-existence and cooperative commercial and treaty relations. Eschewing medieval interpretations of the Quran
and hadith (sayings and deeds of the prophet Muhammad), Ibn Abd al-Wahhab called for direct, historically contextualized interpretation of scripture by both women and men. His understanding of theology and Islamic law was rooted in Quranic values, rather than literal interpretations. A strong proponent of women's rights, he called for a balance of rights between women and men both within marriage and in access to education and public space. In the most comprehensive study of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's interpretation of jihad ever written, DeLong-Bas details a vision in which jihad is strictly limited to the self-defense of the Muslim community against military aggression. Contemporary extremists like Osama bin Laden do not have their origins in Wahhabism, she shows. The hallmark jihadi focus on a cult of martyrdom, the strict division of the world into two necessarily opposing spheres, the wholescale destruction of both civilian life and property, and the call for global jihad are entirely
absent from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's writings. Instead, the militant stance of contemporary jihadism lies in adherence to the writings of the medieval scholar, Ibn Taymiyya, and the 20th century Egyptian radical, Sayyid Qutb. This pathbreaking book fills an enormous gap in the literature about Wahhabism by returning to the original writings of its founder. Bound to be controversial, it will be impossible to ignore.
and hadith (sayings and deeds of the prophet Muhammad), Ibn Abd al-Wahhab called for direct, historically contextualized interpretation of scripture by both women and men. His understanding of theology and Islamic law was rooted in Quranic values, rather than literal interpretations. A strong proponent of women's rights, he called for a balance of rights between women and men both within marriage and in access to education and public space. In the most comprehensive study of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's interpretation of jihad ever written, DeLong-Bas details a vision in which jihad is strictly limited to the self-defense of the Muslim community against military aggression. Contemporary extremists like Osama bin Laden do not have their origins in Wahhabism, she shows. The hallmark jihadi focus on a cult of martyrdom, the strict division of the world into two necessarily opposing spheres, the wholescale destruction of both civilian life and property, and the call for global jihad are entirely
absent from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's writings. Instead, the militant stance of contemporary jihadism lies in adherence to the writings of the medieval scholar, Ibn Taymiyya, and the 20th century Egyptian radical, Sayyid Qutb. This pathbreaking book fills an enormous gap in the literature about Wahhabism by returning to the original writings of its founder. Bound to be controversial, it will be impossible to ignore.
384 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2004
16 people are currently reading
147 people want to read
About the author
Natana J. Delong-Bas
16 books7 followersNatana J. DeLong-Bas is the Deputy Editor of Oxford Islamic Studies Online and a Lecturer of Theology at Boston College.
A consultant to several international corporations, governments, and the media, she is currently working with the King Abdul Aziz Foundation for Research and Archives in Saudi Arabia and IDC Publishers in the Netherlands to publish portions of the Foundation's historical manuscript holdings related to the history and development of Islam from the eighteenth century through the twentieth century.
A consultant to several international corporations, governments, and the media, she is currently working with the King Abdul Aziz Foundation for Research and Archives in Saudi Arabia and IDC Publishers in the Netherlands to publish portions of the Foundation's historical manuscript holdings related to the history and development of Islam from the eighteenth century through the twentieth century.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
May 25, 2014
Natana J. DeLong-Bas’ “Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad” (Oxford University Press, 2004) is a self-described controversial book which has received rave reviews from critics, who have labeled the book “meticulously-researched,” “original,” and “path-breaking.” Utilizing the original writings of Muḥammad ibn Abd al-Wahhāb and his biographers, rendering them accessible to a broad audience through their translation into English for the first time, DeLong-Bas seeks to challenge the dominant scholarly interpretation of the founder of the Wahhabi movement and his legacy in the Muslim world. In this brief review, I will attempt to reconstruct her major arguments, analyze her methodology, and problematize many of her conclusions. This is by no means an attempt to delegitimize the author or her subject, but a brief attempt to underscore some of the major issues I had with this work.
Sources and Methodology
The major sources used by the author to reconstruct the life and ideas of Wahhabism’s founder are Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s own writings, and the biographical works of his followers, namely Husayn ibn Ghannām’s “Tarīkh Najd” and ‘Uthmān ibn Bishr’s 19th-century chronicle. DeLong-Bas asserts that “[these] chronicles contain the most biographical information and are considered to be the most accurate in terms of biographical information because of the proximity of the writers to their subjects” (p.14). Hence, from the outset she declares that methodologically she sees no inherent problem in reconstructing the life and ideas of a controversial figure by uncritically employing the writings of his disciples and closest adherents. This is reflected in the narrative, as her biography of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb is clearly little more than a translation of the hagiographies of Ibn Bishr and Ibn Ghannām and their watering-down for a Western audience. When she does happen to interject her own interpretation, it is usually in an apologetic fashion or to clarify certain terms, as opposed to a critical interpretation of the text itself. At no point does the author attempt to seriously problematize the nature of her sources, a fundamental error for any work of history. To make matters worse, DeLong-Bas absolutely refuses to utilize any works by Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s contemporary detractors, labeling them as “polemical” and “hostile” and thus completely discards them from her analysis, rendering any potential “path-breaking” potential her book may have possessed nearly worthless. More bizarrely, she chooses to deliberately ignore the correspondence/letter exchanges between Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb and his contemporaries (Sufis, Sunnis, etc.), although many scholars have indicated that these sources are fundamental for anyone seeking to understand the reformer and his ideas. These are merely some of the problems with the author’s methodology and utilization of source material.
Argument and Conclusions
The author’s argument is fairly easy to follow, thanks largely to her writing style. She argues that Muḥammad ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s life and teachings have been completely misunderstood by 200 years of Muslim/non-Muslim scholarship, and that his ideas have been unfairly stigmatized as promoting violence, intolerance, and sectarianism. Far from this deeply-flawed image, argues De Long-Bas, Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb was a moderate reformer whose ideas promoted women's rights and emphasized social justice. She makes a strong case suggesting that Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb was in fact more educated than has previously been thought and has traveled widely in his pursuit of knowledge. This is perhaps one of the most effective parts of her argument. She claims that the life of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb needs to be contextualized within that of 18th-century Islamic reformism, which sought to restore Islam to its textual foundations by reducing the power of the religious elite, who sought to monopolize the interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah/hadith, and cracking down on “innovative practices” (bid‘ah). She pushes this relatively moderate argument to the extreme however in claiming that Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb sought to create a society in which all people—male/female, ‘ulema/lay people—could exercise the right of ijtihād through their use of reason to interpret the Qur’an and Sunnah. More problematically, she asserts (very strongly) that Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s vision was absolutely in line with the Qur’an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad and that his opponents were motivated by the selfish desire to maintain their political or social power. She focuses in particular on notions of tawḥīd, bid‘ah, and da‘wa and, following the logic of the sources she employs, sketches a biography of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb which very closely resembles that of the Prophet himself. At times, she comes very close to suggesting that Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb was divinely-inspired or believed himself to be so. She sums up his biography as follows:
“Like his contemporaries [Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb] called for the sociomoral reconstruction of society through greater adherence to monotheism (tawḥīd) and renewed attention to the Qur’an and the hadith. He rejected imitation of the past (taqlīd) in favor of fresh and direct interpretation (ijtihād) of the scriptures and Islamic law by contextualizing them and studying their content. He was a religious scholar. He established a protective relationship with a local leader, who agreed to implement his religious teachings. Jihād was neither the primary goal nor the purpose of the movement he inspired. And he was opposed by local religious scholars and leaders who perceived threats to their own power bases from his teachings” (pp.13-14)
The second part of the author’s argument consists of attempting to refute the relationship between violent jihadism and Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s teachings. DeLong-Bas argues that Islamist violence and ideology are not in line with the original teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahab and due more to the influence of thinkers such as Ibn Taymīyya and Syed Qutb. She vehemently rejects any connection between Ibn Abdul Wahab’s teachings and Ibn Taymīyya’s, and problematizes any attempt to link Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb to al-Qaeda’s ideology. She argues that the motives, tactics, and methods of today’s jihadists are completely different than the da‘wa advocated by Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb in 18th-century Najd. She further claims that many of today’s Salafis who claim to follow in the footsteps of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb are not faithful to the essence of his teachings, which the author claims are humane, libertarian, non-sectarian, and geared towards creating a tolerant, egalitarian society
Criticisms
1. The author’s sources and methodology are problematic. Despite her attempt to argue the contrary, her over-reliance on Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s own writings and those of his followers lead the author towards a deeply flawed conclusion at odds with most of the historical record. Methodologically, it is extremely problematic, especially in light of her deliberate omission of material which may have counterbalanced the pro-Wahhabi bias. Her refusal to integrate any serious critiques of Wahhabism, including the plethora of balanced criticism from contemporary Muslim scholars, greatly damages the credibility of the book and the integrity of her scholarship.
2. Her narrative lacks documentation and critical interpretation. DeLong-Bas’ narrative, although beautifully written and easy to follow, betrays many of her biases. Many of her assertions lack credible documentation (when she provides any at all) and the biographical information about Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb (close to 1/3 of the book) is almost entirely a rewording of the hagiographical works of his closest followers into English. This is deeply problematic and unfair to the reader who earnestly seeks to understand the Wahhabi movement and its founder. Furthermore, her failure to critically explain certain terms (such as “rāfiḍa,” “taqlīd,” “jihād,” “ijtihād,” “tawassul,” “ijmā”) by essentially validating the Wahhabi interpretation of these words without providing the opportunity for her readers to agree or disagree was troubling. These terms are absolutely central to understanding the subject, and the way she oversimplified many of them was astounding. A lay reader would assume that there was absolutely nothing controversial about 18th-century reformism or the rise of the Wahhabi movement, which was doing nothing less than reviving the Tawḥīd of Muhammad, through the use of ijtihād, and cracking down on “corruptive and deeply un-Islamic practices” such as tawassul. Any Muslim reading this book will be appalled at how uncritically these words are thrown around. The various assumptions and recycling of Wahhabi rhetoric employed within the book was extremely disappointing.
3. The author lacks a foundational understanding of Islamic history and theology. Two examples will suffice to demonstrate this. On page 84, she claims that Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb did not oppose Shi’ism, but was rather opposed to “the extremist Rāfiḍah sect,” not knowing that by ‘rafidah,’ Ibn Abdul Wahab meant ALL Shi’is, as this term was an extremely derogatory way that Sunni scholars and polemicists referred to Shi’i Muslims, similar to the use of ‘nāsibī’ by some Shi’i scholars when referring to Sunnis. She then proceeds to build her argument and base her analysis of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s perspective of Shi’i Muslims on this extremely flawed assumption. Secondly, DeLong-Bas’ view of Sufism is downright hostile. Take for example her explanation of the Hanbali school of thought’s opposition to Sufism: “The opposition of the Hanbali school to certain Sufi practices developed as Sufism’s geographical spread led to the adoption of un-Islamic practices unto the devotional practices of certain orders” (p.84). Her adoption of Wahhabi terms of reference and the validation of their worldview could not be clearer. Without any evidence or further explanation, she accepts without question that Sufism incorporated “un-Islamic practices,” based solely on the fact that this is what Hanbali jurists claimed. This is putting aside the fact that, historically, many Hanbali jurists were themselves Sufis. What is most troubling, however, is the claim that Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb was neither inherently anti-Sufi not anti-Shi’i but merely sought to “guide them onto the right path and convince them, through da’wa” to abandon their questionable practices, an assertion that would make even the most liberal Wahhabi blush. As such, she denies any connection between Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb‘s teachings and violence directed at these two groups.
4. Her characterization of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s mission as feminist, egalitarian, geared towards social justice, uncontroversial, and essentially non-violent are grotesque distortions of a far more complex reality. The fact that the author interprets Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s stoning to death of a woman (a story she takes out of one of the hagiographical accounts) as evidence of his concern for women’s rights (pp.28-29) speaks for itself. Although she extensively cites Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb ‘s views on women, her evidence that his views were emancipatory for women are almost comical and circumstantial (i.e. he banned certain sexual practices deemed derogatory to women). Her treatment of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s literalism, excommunication of fellow Muslims, and aggressive actions taken against non-conforming Muslims is also deeply problematic and far too detailed to be described here.
5. Denial that Wahhabi doctrine has led to extreme violence and strife in the Islamic world is not only dishonest, it is plain stupid. Her complete silence about the Wahhabi atrocities in Arabia, the Hijaz, Ta’if, and Karbala are frightening and destroys any and all credibility which the book still maintained in my eyes up to that point. The final part of the work, in which the author examines the alleged connections between Wahhabism and violent jihadism, can best be described as apologetic. Sometimes this apologia verges on the absurd. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, both leaders of Al-Qaeda and pioneers of global jihadism, are known to have been inspired by Syed Qutb, as well as by Wahhabi doctrine. The differences and distinctions between Wahhabism and Jihadism notwithstanding, the fact remains that there are many overlaps! Not so, argues DeLong Bas. Hmm…then what is her explanation for the ideological influences motivating Al-Qaeda?! According to the author…Sufism (!!). Her description of Ayman al-Zawahiri as a “major Sufi sheikh” (p.274) and Bin Laden as having Sufi-like spiritual trances on the battlefield (p.274) leaves one in little doubt that the author would actually have us believe that Sufism, not Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb, is an important influence on the most destructive religio-political force in the world today!
Final thoughts
Overall, Natana DeLong-Bas’ “Wahhabi Islam” is controversial. The book comes across as nothing short of a well-written whitewash of Wahhabism, and merely the acknowledgements leaves the reader in little doubt over who the author’s patrons are. Sure, there are some significant positive aspects, such as challenging conventional wisdom on the subject and suggesting that Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb wasn’t merely an angry Arab waving a sword, and that Jihadist violence today may have a lot more to do with political circumstances than strictly ideology. The descriptive discussion of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb‘s legal rulings also reveals a very different individual than the one often portrayed. However, the book falls short of an effective response to these misconceptions and misunderstandings of the Wahhabi movement by its flawed approach and its discounting of all counterarguments to the Wahhabi da’wa as “politically motivated.” Her lack of confidence in non-Wahhabi Muslims and her belittling of their efforts to challenge Wahhabism also comes across as arrogant and will not endear her to Muslim readers or encourage serious debate about the book. This book is also potentially harmful to the non-specialist as its deeply sympathetic depiction and glamorization of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb may actually convince the reader that there is a 200-year old Muslim/non-Muslim conspiracy to undermine a feminist-social justice-tolerant-modernizing Islamic movement. The deeply-flawed methodology and the white-washing aside, the author’s claims are simply not defensible.
Sources and Methodology
The major sources used by the author to reconstruct the life and ideas of Wahhabism’s founder are Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s own writings, and the biographical works of his followers, namely Husayn ibn Ghannām’s “Tarīkh Najd” and ‘Uthmān ibn Bishr’s 19th-century chronicle. DeLong-Bas asserts that “[these] chronicles contain the most biographical information and are considered to be the most accurate in terms of biographical information because of the proximity of the writers to their subjects” (p.14). Hence, from the outset she declares that methodologically she sees no inherent problem in reconstructing the life and ideas of a controversial figure by uncritically employing the writings of his disciples and closest adherents. This is reflected in the narrative, as her biography of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb is clearly little more than a translation of the hagiographies of Ibn Bishr and Ibn Ghannām and their watering-down for a Western audience. When she does happen to interject her own interpretation, it is usually in an apologetic fashion or to clarify certain terms, as opposed to a critical interpretation of the text itself. At no point does the author attempt to seriously problematize the nature of her sources, a fundamental error for any work of history. To make matters worse, DeLong-Bas absolutely refuses to utilize any works by Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s contemporary detractors, labeling them as “polemical” and “hostile” and thus completely discards them from her analysis, rendering any potential “path-breaking” potential her book may have possessed nearly worthless. More bizarrely, she chooses to deliberately ignore the correspondence/letter exchanges between Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb and his contemporaries (Sufis, Sunnis, etc.), although many scholars have indicated that these sources are fundamental for anyone seeking to understand the reformer and his ideas. These are merely some of the problems with the author’s methodology and utilization of source material.
Argument and Conclusions
The author’s argument is fairly easy to follow, thanks largely to her writing style. She argues that Muḥammad ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s life and teachings have been completely misunderstood by 200 years of Muslim/non-Muslim scholarship, and that his ideas have been unfairly stigmatized as promoting violence, intolerance, and sectarianism. Far from this deeply-flawed image, argues De Long-Bas, Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb was a moderate reformer whose ideas promoted women's rights and emphasized social justice. She makes a strong case suggesting that Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb was in fact more educated than has previously been thought and has traveled widely in his pursuit of knowledge. This is perhaps one of the most effective parts of her argument. She claims that the life of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb needs to be contextualized within that of 18th-century Islamic reformism, which sought to restore Islam to its textual foundations by reducing the power of the religious elite, who sought to monopolize the interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah/hadith, and cracking down on “innovative practices” (bid‘ah). She pushes this relatively moderate argument to the extreme however in claiming that Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb sought to create a society in which all people—male/female, ‘ulema/lay people—could exercise the right of ijtihād through their use of reason to interpret the Qur’an and Sunnah. More problematically, she asserts (very strongly) that Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s vision was absolutely in line with the Qur’an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad and that his opponents were motivated by the selfish desire to maintain their political or social power. She focuses in particular on notions of tawḥīd, bid‘ah, and da‘wa and, following the logic of the sources she employs, sketches a biography of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb which very closely resembles that of the Prophet himself. At times, she comes very close to suggesting that Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb was divinely-inspired or believed himself to be so. She sums up his biography as follows:
“Like his contemporaries [Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb] called for the sociomoral reconstruction of society through greater adherence to monotheism (tawḥīd) and renewed attention to the Qur’an and the hadith. He rejected imitation of the past (taqlīd) in favor of fresh and direct interpretation (ijtihād) of the scriptures and Islamic law by contextualizing them and studying their content. He was a religious scholar. He established a protective relationship with a local leader, who agreed to implement his religious teachings. Jihād was neither the primary goal nor the purpose of the movement he inspired. And he was opposed by local religious scholars and leaders who perceived threats to their own power bases from his teachings” (pp.13-14)
The second part of the author’s argument consists of attempting to refute the relationship between violent jihadism and Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s teachings. DeLong-Bas argues that Islamist violence and ideology are not in line with the original teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahab and due more to the influence of thinkers such as Ibn Taymīyya and Syed Qutb. She vehemently rejects any connection between Ibn Abdul Wahab’s teachings and Ibn Taymīyya’s, and problematizes any attempt to link Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb to al-Qaeda’s ideology. She argues that the motives, tactics, and methods of today’s jihadists are completely different than the da‘wa advocated by Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb in 18th-century Najd. She further claims that many of today’s Salafis who claim to follow in the footsteps of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb are not faithful to the essence of his teachings, which the author claims are humane, libertarian, non-sectarian, and geared towards creating a tolerant, egalitarian society
Criticisms
1. The author’s sources and methodology are problematic. Despite her attempt to argue the contrary, her over-reliance on Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s own writings and those of his followers lead the author towards a deeply flawed conclusion at odds with most of the historical record. Methodologically, it is extremely problematic, especially in light of her deliberate omission of material which may have counterbalanced the pro-Wahhabi bias. Her refusal to integrate any serious critiques of Wahhabism, including the plethora of balanced criticism from contemporary Muslim scholars, greatly damages the credibility of the book and the integrity of her scholarship.
2. Her narrative lacks documentation and critical interpretation. DeLong-Bas’ narrative, although beautifully written and easy to follow, betrays many of her biases. Many of her assertions lack credible documentation (when she provides any at all) and the biographical information about Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb (close to 1/3 of the book) is almost entirely a rewording of the hagiographical works of his closest followers into English. This is deeply problematic and unfair to the reader who earnestly seeks to understand the Wahhabi movement and its founder. Furthermore, her failure to critically explain certain terms (such as “rāfiḍa,” “taqlīd,” “jihād,” “ijtihād,” “tawassul,” “ijmā”) by essentially validating the Wahhabi interpretation of these words without providing the opportunity for her readers to agree or disagree was troubling. These terms are absolutely central to understanding the subject, and the way she oversimplified many of them was astounding. A lay reader would assume that there was absolutely nothing controversial about 18th-century reformism or the rise of the Wahhabi movement, which was doing nothing less than reviving the Tawḥīd of Muhammad, through the use of ijtihād, and cracking down on “corruptive and deeply un-Islamic practices” such as tawassul. Any Muslim reading this book will be appalled at how uncritically these words are thrown around. The various assumptions and recycling of Wahhabi rhetoric employed within the book was extremely disappointing.
3. The author lacks a foundational understanding of Islamic history and theology. Two examples will suffice to demonstrate this. On page 84, she claims that Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb did not oppose Shi’ism, but was rather opposed to “the extremist Rāfiḍah sect,” not knowing that by ‘rafidah,’ Ibn Abdul Wahab meant ALL Shi’is, as this term was an extremely derogatory way that Sunni scholars and polemicists referred to Shi’i Muslims, similar to the use of ‘nāsibī’ by some Shi’i scholars when referring to Sunnis. She then proceeds to build her argument and base her analysis of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s perspective of Shi’i Muslims on this extremely flawed assumption. Secondly, DeLong-Bas’ view of Sufism is downright hostile. Take for example her explanation of the Hanbali school of thought’s opposition to Sufism: “The opposition of the Hanbali school to certain Sufi practices developed as Sufism’s geographical spread led to the adoption of un-Islamic practices unto the devotional practices of certain orders” (p.84). Her adoption of Wahhabi terms of reference and the validation of their worldview could not be clearer. Without any evidence or further explanation, she accepts without question that Sufism incorporated “un-Islamic practices,” based solely on the fact that this is what Hanbali jurists claimed. This is putting aside the fact that, historically, many Hanbali jurists were themselves Sufis. What is most troubling, however, is the claim that Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb was neither inherently anti-Sufi not anti-Shi’i but merely sought to “guide them onto the right path and convince them, through da’wa” to abandon their questionable practices, an assertion that would make even the most liberal Wahhabi blush. As such, she denies any connection between Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb‘s teachings and violence directed at these two groups.
4. Her characterization of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s mission as feminist, egalitarian, geared towards social justice, uncontroversial, and essentially non-violent are grotesque distortions of a far more complex reality. The fact that the author interprets Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s stoning to death of a woman (a story she takes out of one of the hagiographical accounts) as evidence of his concern for women’s rights (pp.28-29) speaks for itself. Although she extensively cites Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb ‘s views on women, her evidence that his views were emancipatory for women are almost comical and circumstantial (i.e. he banned certain sexual practices deemed derogatory to women). Her treatment of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb’s literalism, excommunication of fellow Muslims, and aggressive actions taken against non-conforming Muslims is also deeply problematic and far too detailed to be described here.
5. Denial that Wahhabi doctrine has led to extreme violence and strife in the Islamic world is not only dishonest, it is plain stupid. Her complete silence about the Wahhabi atrocities in Arabia, the Hijaz, Ta’if, and Karbala are frightening and destroys any and all credibility which the book still maintained in my eyes up to that point. The final part of the work, in which the author examines the alleged connections between Wahhabism and violent jihadism, can best be described as apologetic. Sometimes this apologia verges on the absurd. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, both leaders of Al-Qaeda and pioneers of global jihadism, are known to have been inspired by Syed Qutb, as well as by Wahhabi doctrine. The differences and distinctions between Wahhabism and Jihadism notwithstanding, the fact remains that there are many overlaps! Not so, argues DeLong Bas. Hmm…then what is her explanation for the ideological influences motivating Al-Qaeda?! According to the author…Sufism (!!). Her description of Ayman al-Zawahiri as a “major Sufi sheikh” (p.274) and Bin Laden as having Sufi-like spiritual trances on the battlefield (p.274) leaves one in little doubt that the author would actually have us believe that Sufism, not Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb, is an important influence on the most destructive religio-political force in the world today!
Final thoughts
Overall, Natana DeLong-Bas’ “Wahhabi Islam” is controversial. The book comes across as nothing short of a well-written whitewash of Wahhabism, and merely the acknowledgements leaves the reader in little doubt over who the author’s patrons are. Sure, there are some significant positive aspects, such as challenging conventional wisdom on the subject and suggesting that Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb wasn’t merely an angry Arab waving a sword, and that Jihadist violence today may have a lot more to do with political circumstances than strictly ideology. The descriptive discussion of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb‘s legal rulings also reveals a very different individual than the one often portrayed. However, the book falls short of an effective response to these misconceptions and misunderstandings of the Wahhabi movement by its flawed approach and its discounting of all counterarguments to the Wahhabi da’wa as “politically motivated.” Her lack of confidence in non-Wahhabi Muslims and her belittling of their efforts to challenge Wahhabism also comes across as arrogant and will not endear her to Muslim readers or encourage serious debate about the book. This book is also potentially harmful to the non-specialist as its deeply sympathetic depiction and glamorization of Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb may actually convince the reader that there is a 200-year old Muslim/non-Muslim conspiracy to undermine a feminist-social justice-tolerant-modernizing Islamic movement. The deeply-flawed methodology and the white-washing aside, the author’s claims are simply not defensible.
December 24, 2015
This book which was written by a Boston College Theology Professor and published by Oxford University Press is a deeply researched work by an academic at one of America's leading universities.
Delong-Bas presents an objective history of Wahhabism which is a a movement founded in the eighteenth century by the Mullah and expert on the Hanbali legal tradition (school of fiqh)., Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).
Delong-Bas simply perceives Wahhabism to be a merely a faction within the Sunni Muslim community that is radically monotheist. In this she is perfectly correct. Until the West decides to exercise traditional intellectual rigor in analyzing social and political trends in the muslim world, the the dialogue of the deaf will continue.
The problem is that the shelves of our book retailers are packed with Journalistic commentary trying to pass itself off as research. The goal of these books is make money for the authors and publishers by hurling insults at the Muslim fundamentalist jihadist terrorists. The approach is to find every fault of every faction in the Muslim world, exaggerate the magnitude of the problem and imply that the practice is prevalent throughout the larger community. If this approach were applied to an Islamic analysis of the Christian World the following conclusions would be drawn
-1- all Christians have mulitple wives (which assumes that we are all Mormons unaware of the fact that the mormon church abolished polygamy in the 1890s)
-2- that black people can not attend the same churches as white people (which was once the case in many jurisdictions where slavery was legal
-3- that we use exorcists to expel demons from our bodies whenever we are possessed by a devil. (In fact exorcisms are very rare although most catholic dioceses still do indeed have an exorcist. The competition is very stiff for these positions because the training is in Roman)
-4- we believe in reincarnation, (We do not although I have read some authors who are of the opinion that the Jews do
-5- househeld pets are allowed to take holy communion. (The truth is that a blind person has the right to approach the Eucharist with a seeing eye dog)
This sort of rot gets us nowhere. Treat the muslims with respect. In order to understand Hanbali jurisprudence, read this book.
Delong-Bas presents an objective history of Wahhabism which is a a movement founded in the eighteenth century by the Mullah and expert on the Hanbali legal tradition (school of fiqh)., Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).
Delong-Bas simply perceives Wahhabism to be a merely a faction within the Sunni Muslim community that is radically monotheist. In this she is perfectly correct. Until the West decides to exercise traditional intellectual rigor in analyzing social and political trends in the muslim world, the the dialogue of the deaf will continue.
The problem is that the shelves of our book retailers are packed with Journalistic commentary trying to pass itself off as research. The goal of these books is make money for the authors and publishers by hurling insults at the Muslim fundamentalist jihadist terrorists. The approach is to find every fault of every faction in the Muslim world, exaggerate the magnitude of the problem and imply that the practice is prevalent throughout the larger community. If this approach were applied to an Islamic analysis of the Christian World the following conclusions would be drawn
-1- all Christians have mulitple wives (which assumes that we are all Mormons unaware of the fact that the mormon church abolished polygamy in the 1890s)
-2- that black people can not attend the same churches as white people (which was once the case in many jurisdictions where slavery was legal
-3- that we use exorcists to expel demons from our bodies whenever we are possessed by a devil. (In fact exorcisms are very rare although most catholic dioceses still do indeed have an exorcist. The competition is very stiff for these positions because the training is in Roman)
-4- we believe in reincarnation, (We do not although I have read some authors who are of the opinion that the Jews do
-5- househeld pets are allowed to take holy communion. (The truth is that a blind person has the right to approach the Eucharist with a seeing eye dog)
This sort of rot gets us nowhere. Treat the muslims with respect. In order to understand Hanbali jurisprudence, read this book.
November 23, 2017
Several problems with the resource, funding, methodology and interpretation of this book have already been exposed in other commentaries. I only have two comments on it:
1) Natana tries to settle the image of Al-Wahhab as some kind of gender conscient individual due to several quotations regarding marriage and divorce, which indeed were "liberalized" in post-Islamic Arabia, according to some academics. However, if she makes any reference to gender-related violence or gender roles in Muslim society relating to women, I've completely missed it. She also contradicts herself when mentioning that to Al-Wahhab, there was no reference to women's responsibility on sexual crimes when in the former chapters she mentions a woman Al-Wahhab sentenced to death by adultery. By no means, I want to demand Al-Wahhab to not be an individual of its times, but to promote him as a kind of feminist warrior is a mere falsification.
2) Natana also mentions how Al-Wahhab shuns the idea of offensive jihad. However she makes no assertion to justify this claim, and her interpretation of Al-Wahhab's hermeneutics of more violent Quran verses are laughable at best. She completely ignores that he takes them at face value and try to circunscribe her way out of an obvious call to arms. There were other muslim jurists that only prescribe jihad as a defensive war, and Natana quotes them. However she mentions how to Al-Wahhab the relationship with infidels must be ruled by the idea of conversion, submissions through the payment of jizya or death. This is an obvious relationship of hostility.
Still, it is worth to read it, but you should search primary sources when reading it, as she rarely quotes Al-Wahhab directly, and mainly does a "he said that..." kind of thing that's quite annoying.
1) Natana tries to settle the image of Al-Wahhab as some kind of gender conscient individual due to several quotations regarding marriage and divorce, which indeed were "liberalized" in post-Islamic Arabia, according to some academics. However, if she makes any reference to gender-related violence or gender roles in Muslim society relating to women, I've completely missed it. She also contradicts herself when mentioning that to Al-Wahhab, there was no reference to women's responsibility on sexual crimes when in the former chapters she mentions a woman Al-Wahhab sentenced to death by adultery. By no means, I want to demand Al-Wahhab to not be an individual of its times, but to promote him as a kind of feminist warrior is a mere falsification.
2) Natana also mentions how Al-Wahhab shuns the idea of offensive jihad. However she makes no assertion to justify this claim, and her interpretation of Al-Wahhab's hermeneutics of more violent Quran verses are laughable at best. She completely ignores that he takes them at face value and try to circunscribe her way out of an obvious call to arms. There were other muslim jurists that only prescribe jihad as a defensive war, and Natana quotes them. However she mentions how to Al-Wahhab the relationship with infidels must be ruled by the idea of conversion, submissions through the payment of jizya or death. This is an obvious relationship of hostility.
Still, it is worth to read it, but you should search primary sources when reading it, as she rarely quotes Al-Wahhab directly, and mainly does a "he said that..." kind of thing that's quite annoying.
February 11, 2022
Various points about this book
1) I agree with pretty much everything in Mohamad Ballan's review above
2) It's pretty frustrating that this book, by setting out to be 'controversial', got far less attention than, eg., Khalid S. Dakhil's much more methodologically sound research into the origins of the Wahhabiyya.
3) I note an earlier review is critical in spite of the 'meticulous footnoting'. Actually, the footnoting only appears meticulous - actually, it tends to follow a pattern where fairly straightforward narrative detail receives a considerable deal of referencing, whereas some of the most contentious claims receive no support at all. See, for instance, the various hagiographic claims about Ibn Abd al-Wahhab on p. 17, which are presumably based on the Ibn Ghannam and Ibn Bishr accounts, but it isn't clear which passage. The entirety of page 19, which is full of extremely subjective claims about the nature of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teaching and how it was received, doesn't get a single footnote, but then on page 22 we get about 7 foonotes in ten lines, mainly covering minor details about his travels in al-Zubayr and Huraymila. See the pattern?
4) The entirety of Chapter 1 is a lesson in how not to use historical source material. The author's narrative voice is mixed together with the voice of the source to the point I cannot tell which is which. There is little in the way of academic distance here.
5) On p28, Delong-Bas writes of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's stoning of an adulteress 'The case also serves as evidence of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's concern for justice for women', on the basis of his initial efforts to persuade her to change her ways. This is then almost immediately followed up with 'The woman's ultimate punishment was due to her failure to cease her immoral behaviour'. The book deserves one-starring on the basis of that passage alone.
1) I agree with pretty much everything in Mohamad Ballan's review above
2) It's pretty frustrating that this book, by setting out to be 'controversial', got far less attention than, eg., Khalid S. Dakhil's much more methodologically sound research into the origins of the Wahhabiyya.
3) I note an earlier review is critical in spite of the 'meticulous footnoting'. Actually, the footnoting only appears meticulous - actually, it tends to follow a pattern where fairly straightforward narrative detail receives a considerable deal of referencing, whereas some of the most contentious claims receive no support at all. See, for instance, the various hagiographic claims about Ibn Abd al-Wahhab on p. 17, which are presumably based on the Ibn Ghannam and Ibn Bishr accounts, but it isn't clear which passage. The entirety of page 19, which is full of extremely subjective claims about the nature of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teaching and how it was received, doesn't get a single footnote, but then on page 22 we get about 7 foonotes in ten lines, mainly covering minor details about his travels in al-Zubayr and Huraymila. See the pattern?
4) The entirety of Chapter 1 is a lesson in how not to use historical source material. The author's narrative voice is mixed together with the voice of the source to the point I cannot tell which is which. There is little in the way of academic distance here.
5) On p28, Delong-Bas writes of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's stoning of an adulteress 'The case also serves as evidence of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's concern for justice for women', on the basis of his initial efforts to persuade her to change her ways. This is then almost immediately followed up with 'The woman's ultimate punishment was due to her failure to cease her immoral behaviour'. The book deserves one-starring on the basis of that passage alone.
January 25, 2013
I'm too tired to write my own review, and felt this was pretty on point of what I have to say:
"Delong-Bas examines the historical aspects of this much misunderstood movement and uncover some fascinating facts with regards to the true teachings of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and show that he has really called for moderation, dialog with non-Muslims and the protection of women's rights as his hallmarks. The term "Wahhabi" itself is an idea invented by the Ottoman Turks to construct the indigenous Arab tribes as fanatic idealists incapable of self-governance. Unfortunately, followers of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab has in recent times absorbed violent ideals from the teachings of Qutb and Ibn Taymiyya as part of the movement, hence the amount of bad light upon it thus far."
"Delong-Bas examines the historical aspects of this much misunderstood movement and uncover some fascinating facts with regards to the true teachings of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and show that he has really called for moderation, dialog with non-Muslims and the protection of women's rights as his hallmarks. The term "Wahhabi" itself is an idea invented by the Ottoman Turks to construct the indigenous Arab tribes as fanatic idealists incapable of self-governance. Unfortunately, followers of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab has in recent times absorbed violent ideals from the teachings of Qutb and Ibn Taymiyya as part of the movement, hence the amount of bad light upon it thus far."
August 30, 2012
This is a rare book on the topic written by someone who actually knows what she is talking about. Delong-Bas present an original but sophisticated analysis of Abd al-Wahhab and places in the context of the times in which her book was written (2004).
November 8, 2008
not a convincing case. It is a novel work but one that needs expansion and a more convincing manner of presentation.
February 18, 2022
كتاب ممتاز ، محايد و تاريخي يبحث في حياة مؤسس الحركه الوهابية في نجد و الحجاز في القرن الثامن عشر المجتهد محمد عبد الوهاب.
الكتاب يفصل ما بين الحركة الوهابية المجددة للإسلام و الوهابية السياسية و نظره الغرب حول الإسلام فوبيا.
الكتاب يفصل ما بين الحركة الوهابية المجددة للإسلام و الوهابية السياسية و نظره الغرب حول الإسلام فوبيا.
September 1, 2018
Love this book or hate it, one thing is clear: it’s advocacy, not “dispassionate scholarship.” Minutia? Footnotes? heavy going prose? Oh yes! Impartiality? Not a chance. As one critic put it, the "man who personally stoned a woman to death for adultery" is portrayed as "a proto-feminist". ([http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/S...)
But in Delong-Bas's struggle against Islamophobia, Empire, Racism, stereotypes, exploitation, and much more, some things can go missing. In this case, unfortunately, it’s credibility. The author will win over few undecideds.
Wahhab was about converting unbelievers with "debate and discussion", we are told. (p.35) So Wahhab is for allowing difference of opinion on religion? Well, no. "Variances of opinion" actually "constitute a source of chaos". Differences in belief "obfuscat[e] rather than clarif[y]" things. (p.54) Can't have that.
Wahhab is about "social justice ... the protection of women and the poor".(p.35) Bad things like "xenophobia, militantism, misogyny, extremism, and literalism" (p.5) are all absent from his writings. So his Wahhabi followers were not militant, extreme, … stuff like that? Well, yes, they did raid and kill civilians … but that wasn’t Wahhab’s fault. His partner and military commander Muhammad Ibn Saud -- he did it. You see, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab was against all the killing but just didn't "interfer". And so it goes on for page after page.
Many complaints can be made about this book:
*The author's taking money from a foundation of the country (Saudi Arabia) where the state religion is the subject of her book. (http://www.meforum.org/1517/wahhabi-i...)
*Rarely quoting her subject - Ibn Abdul-Wahhab. She tells us what he said but we have to take her word for it, with a few exceptions. (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/S...)
*Rarely comparing what Wahhab’s modern day followers say or do with what the man himself says (or at least what deLong-Bas says he said). Surely if Wahhab is so misunderstood his followers fanaticism/wrongdoing must take some of the blame. Modern observers have not read Wahhab but know what Wahhabis have done. Instead, the book makes plenty of comparisons between what deLong-Bas says Wahhab wrote, and what Wahhabi critics say he says or did. This seems a red herring. How many readers have an attitude against Wahhab because of the criticism of him they read, rather than hearing about doctrine that has motivated beheading and bombing?
*Setting up a straw man argument, i.e.: Wahhab’s misinformed critics allege that Wahhab's ideas are the source of Islamic extremism.
But most of the major writers on Islamism/Wahhabism/Saudi (Gilles Kepel, Olivier Roy, Dore Gold, David Commins, to name a few) note how bin Laden and other jihadis have combined old fashioned Wahhabism with some other source, such as the Muslim Brotherhood (or specifically Sayyid Qutb). De Long-Bas acts like it’s her discovery.
Maybe the most confusing thing about the book is why it was written.
It is obviously intended for Western readers suspicious of Wahhabism. But why would those people care whether the modern day Saudi Wahhabism has kept Ibn Abdul-Wahhab ideas pure or has cross-bred them with those of, say, Sayyid Qutb? The vast majority of Westerners only care about stopping Wahhabis from killing and destroying. Presumably Wahhabis do care about what Ibn Abdul-Wahhab said that's different from the modern preaching done in his name. But if deLong-Bas was trying to reach them, what good is this book? Why not a blog in Arabic? Why not publish the writings by Ibn Abdul-Wahhab that prove your point?
But in Delong-Bas's struggle against Islamophobia, Empire, Racism, stereotypes, exploitation, and much more, some things can go missing. In this case, unfortunately, it’s credibility. The author will win over few undecideds.
Wahhab was about converting unbelievers with "debate and discussion", we are told. (p.35) So Wahhab is for allowing difference of opinion on religion? Well, no. "Variances of opinion" actually "constitute a source of chaos". Differences in belief "obfuscat[e] rather than clarif[y]" things. (p.54) Can't have that.
Wahhab is about "social justice ... the protection of women and the poor".(p.35) Bad things like "xenophobia, militantism, misogyny, extremism, and literalism" (p.5) are all absent from his writings. So his Wahhabi followers were not militant, extreme, … stuff like that? Well, yes, they did raid and kill civilians … but that wasn’t Wahhab’s fault. His partner and military commander Muhammad Ibn Saud -- he did it. You see, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab was against all the killing but just didn't "interfer". And so it goes on for page after page.
Many complaints can be made about this book:
*The author's taking money from a foundation of the country (Saudi Arabia) where the state religion is the subject of her book. (http://www.meforum.org/1517/wahhabi-i...)
*Rarely quoting her subject - Ibn Abdul-Wahhab. She tells us what he said but we have to take her word for it, with a few exceptions. (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/S...)
*Rarely comparing what Wahhab’s modern day followers say or do with what the man himself says (or at least what deLong-Bas says he said). Surely if Wahhab is so misunderstood his followers fanaticism/wrongdoing must take some of the blame. Modern observers have not read Wahhab but know what Wahhabis have done. Instead, the book makes plenty of comparisons between what deLong-Bas says Wahhab wrote, and what Wahhabi critics say he says or did. This seems a red herring. How many readers have an attitude against Wahhab because of the criticism of him they read, rather than hearing about doctrine that has motivated beheading and bombing?
*Setting up a straw man argument, i.e.: Wahhab’s misinformed critics allege that Wahhab's ideas are the source of Islamic extremism.
But most of the major writers on Islamism/Wahhabism/Saudi (Gilles Kepel, Olivier Roy, Dore Gold, David Commins, to name a few) note how bin Laden and other jihadis have combined old fashioned Wahhabism with some other source, such as the Muslim Brotherhood (or specifically Sayyid Qutb). De Long-Bas acts like it’s her discovery.
Maybe the most confusing thing about the book is why it was written.
It is obviously intended for Western readers suspicious of Wahhabism. But why would those people care whether the modern day Saudi Wahhabism has kept Ibn Abdul-Wahhab ideas pure or has cross-bred them with those of, say, Sayyid Qutb? The vast majority of Westerners only care about stopping Wahhabis from killing and destroying. Presumably Wahhabis do care about what Ibn Abdul-Wahhab said that's different from the modern preaching done in his name. But if deLong-Bas was trying to reach them, what good is this book? Why not a blog in Arabic? Why not publish the writings by Ibn Abdul-Wahhab that prove your point?
January 29, 2011
Most people would associate the term "Wahhabi" with a puritanical, intolerant version of Islam that emanates from the arid deserts of Saudi Arabia. In line with this association would be visions of oppressed women, fat sheiks and their wanton calls for violence against infidels. In this revisionist work, Delong-Bas examines the historical aspects of this much misunderstood movement and uncover some fascinating facts with regards to the true teachings of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and show that he has really called for moderation, dialog with non-Muslims and the protection of women's rights as his hallmarks. The term "Wahhabi" itself is an idea invented by the Ottoman Turks to construct the indigenous Arab tribes as fanatic idealists incapable of self-governance. Unfortunately, followers of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab has in recent times absorbed violent ideals from the teachings of Qutb and Ibn Taymiyya as part of the movement, hence the amount of bad light upon it thus far.
Read
July 5, 2018I doubt much about the current standard of the Book
Read
September 23, 2010Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad by Natana J. Delong-Bas (2004)
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews