Is it Islamism or Wahhabism?

I'm reading an excellent book at the moment, 'Gods Terrorists' http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gods-Terrorists-Wahhabi-Hidden-Modern/dp/0316729973 by Charles Allen. Its a fascinating study of this murderous cult and the place it holds in the history of Islam. It makes clear that todays Al-Qaeda is not a novel phenomenon- it is a straightforward Wahhabist group, espousing exactly the same philosophy that has been around since the 13th century. It makes clear that both mainstream branches of Islam, Sunni and Shia, are distinct in a number of crucial way from the Wahhabists, and that many, maybe even most, Sunni and Shia over the centuries have considered Wahhabists apostates and kaffir (unbelievers).


It traces the origins of Wahhabist thought during the Mongol invasions of the middle east, and shows that it was a visceral reactionary response to the happy-clappy, freewheeling, easy-going (not to mention cultured) Islam that the Mongols brought with them. This will start to get surprisingly reminiscent... Many of the Arabs in Syria were not happy with this novel and to them extremely lightweight version of Islam- and a highly reactionary, intolerant and simplistic version of Islam was born in response. Allen makes clear that certain root elements of mainstream Islam have to be contradicted for Wahhabism to work- even the direct words of Mohammed have to be contradicted (in relation to the replacement as the highest ideal of lesser jihad {physical violence to promote Islam} by greater jihad {a spiritual war that occurs in the soul of man against sin} for instance). For this reason Wahhabists are not even considered Moslems by many Imams and seats of Islamic learning round the world.

The implications of this are very interesting. I have to consider Robert Spencer as misguided and harmful in light of this new information. According to Spencer, all branches of Islam are equally dedicated to extreme violence to pursue lesser jihad in non-moslem nations. I think that given the historical roots of the Wahhabist groups, that is plainly wrong. Whole groups of Wahhabists have been wiped out on numerous occasions by Moslem armies and tribal levees, in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, the old Ottoman empire, Northern India and Bengal. They were only to be allied with or tolerated under the most extreme conditions. Once you understand the almost demented intensity of the Wahhabist intolerance of other forms of Islam which they consider 'impure' and tainted by idol worship, you begin to understand why mainstream Islam has feared it, and should fear it now.

The only difference between Wahhabism in 2007 and in 1857 is that western Europe, especially Britain, in its crass ignorance of this particular strand of Islamic history, has incubated hundreds of thousands of Wahhabist recruits, and the wholesale takeover of Mosques in the west by Wahhabist ideologues. In 1857, the Wahhabists were a tiny and extremely unpopular cult, easily extinguished locally whether in Arabia or India, although always with a propensity to recreate itself in some new pocket of discontent and ignorance. In 2007, they are an enormous cult, bolstered hugely by their 'successes' like 9/11 and 7/7 and the mass bombings in Madrid. Instead of being rightly seen as the suicidal and perverted cancer of Islam, Wahhabism has come to be viewed by many Moslems living in the west as the last redoubt of 'real' Islam. This is very unfortunate for both them and us.

Probably, it will be much worse for the Moslems. I quote from Allen:

'By the end of September 1857 Delhi was a ghost town, entirely cleansed of Moslems, who were now increasingly viewed by the British as the real enemy. 'There has been nothing but shooting these villains the last three days,' wrote a young British officer in a letter home from the Delhi camp, 'some 3 or 400 were shot yesterday. All the women and children are of course allowed to leave the city and the old men. I have seen many young Mussulmen, who no doubt had a hand in murdering our poor women and children, let pass through the gates, but most of them are put to death.' Areas of the city believed to have given aid and succour to the rebels were flattened, including several mosques. Even the city's great Jumma Masjid [the largest and most historic mosque in Delhi] was threatened with demolition.'

I think this has direct relevance for us today. Mainstream Sunni and Shia Moslems have done a terrible job of defining for the public in Europe and America the crucial and highly consequential differences between their own beliefs and those of the Wahhabists. At least some of the British authorities in India knew exactly how crucial and fundamental these differences were, and therefore many mainstream Moslems were spared the wrath directed at the Wahhabists. And yet, as the quote above shows, once Islam becomes embroiled with these attacks on a powerful opponent, the danger is that ALL Moslems will become targets and not just the cultists. Perhaps the leaders of Islam in India were more knowledgeable and wise than their modern-day counterparts, but I do know that virtually nothing has been done to make us in the west aware of the doctrinal and political differences between themselves and the Wahhabists.

All down the ages, from the roots of Wahhabism in the thirteenth century, by far the greatest casualties of the cult have been Moslems, not Kaffirs. Once these guys get going, as they recently did in Afghanistan, its not long before millions of normal, relaxed Moslems start to feel the sharp edge of this cults anger against virtually everything in the world (forget modernity, these guys hate pretty much everything). I will have to consider the implications of this for my own views as I have been pretty much of the Robert Spencer school until recently. But it is clear from 'God's Terrorists' that we are by far not the first to notice the toxic and murderous nature of this resilient cult.