Resolutions: 1) Enough of the obsession with Salafis. 2) Be more confident muslims.

Resolution #1:

Let's not treat Salafis as if they are the only troublemakers or the worst of them.

Firstly, this is only an informative post that seeks to correct a misunderstanding that has long taken root in the progressive muslim community. The purpose of this is not to target anyone nor is it coming from an outsider. Having been a long-time member, and having been guilty of this myself, I can say that this is a key area that requires a little more nuance from us in general. It’s a self-critical post.

Salafism is regrettably often used as a catch-all term for all that is conservative, traditional, or fundamentalist. A reason for this is when we look for answers to religious questions, the first results are usually from salafi fatwa sites, owing to their virtual domination of the internet. Their ridiculous conclusions paired with an intolerance to different opinions can drive anyone crazy.

What’s important to realize is that most other conservative groups (henceforth referred to as trads) are not very different to Salafis in this regard and their areas of disagreement with the Salafists are rarely on issues relevant to us. More often than not, other trads are equally unreasonable and at times more. And when other trads are less unreasonable or when they are slightly opposed to Salafis, it is not an indication that they are on our side! 

Take for example, Sufis. If Sufis dislike salafis and disagree with them on things like music, do they support us too? Not at all. Hamza Yusuf and Abdul Hakim Murad are Sufis who have spoken against Sufis but will vehemently oppose anyone that questions the reliability of the hadith corpus and classical scholarship, or support modernist stances on women's rights and the like. They are conservative and traditionalist to the core.

As with many trads, Sufis only speak out against Salafis due to Salafi objection to aspects of Sufi belief and practice they find untenable with Islamic monotheism. This is because Salafis take from Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the eighteenth-century preacher whose main thesis was that tawhid can not be compromised. His only difference with the other ulema of his region in his era was on Tawhid alone, not even madhab! For everything else, from hadith, jurisprudence, war, or how they dealt with their adversaries, there was nothing different about them. Traditionalist ulema of his region or from anywhere else in that era for that matter were no more liberal for him to have come and single handedly overturned a more liberal Islam. Traditionalists had already ostracised rationalists several hundred years before. So to pinpoint Ibn Abdul Wahab or his immediate followers as the root of all trouble, is grossly incorrect.

There is an notion that Wahhabism is to be grouped under revivalism when every revivalist movement can be traced back to the decline of Muslim power in that area to non-Muslims of the West. Revivalist movements were a desperate attempt to reverse the decline of power and prestige. No such decline took place in central Arabia for Wahhabism to be grouped with other revivalist movements, nor is power a central concern in Ibn Abdul Wahhab's works. His was not a revivalist movement and his ideas were mainly related to aqeedah, so it is almost a conspiracy to believe salafism is what led to the downfall. 

Not suggesting at all that most people here believe in this conspiracy theory or that this sub gave rise to it; in fact, the anti-salafi fixation in progressive muslim circles precedes the starting of this sub. Still, this is important to understand.

What is completely ahistorical is to think that the medieval period was a liberal haven where everything was great until all of it was overturned by Wahhabism. If the premodern Islamic era was all that great, the Islamic modernists wouldn't have any work to do. They did however, and they would receive opposition from all conservative sects. Interestingly, their biggest nemesis was not salafism but mid-century fundamentalism, namely islamism. After the islamist movement proliferated (they liked to call themselves “the islamic movement” though there was very little islamic about them), the advance of modernism was sadly reversed. But all of this happened before salafism even took off on the global scale. 

That did not happen until the 80s. Salafism, 80s onwards, has for sure led to certain trends but their influence around the Muslim world has been vastly overstated. Global Salafism, like actual Salafiyyah, is much more of a niche than we think outside of the internet! Seriously, there might be numerous centres named 'manhaj' etc but the idea that they wrecked the muslim world is untrue. If anything, it was the revivalist movements following WW2, who although did not cause conservatism, did strengthen it while dealing blows to modernists. The islamists viciously attacked islamic modernists because their main agenda was to keep muslims in a clash with the modern world hoping to return to a fictitious age of empires of yore. 

Honestly, how many times have you seen Salafi preachers attack progressive Muslims by name, besides occasionally? Compare that to the three horsemen of youtube islamists: Hijab, Andalusi, and Haqiqatjou who have dedicated their careers to vilifying progressive muslims and creating the blatantly false impression that we are agents of a colonizing west. The same tactics are employed as their forefathers, Maududi and Qutb did a hundred years ago to bring down modernist currents.

While I don’t want us to simply shift our fixation from one group to the other, we have to be mindful of who our bigger villains are. Sure, Salafis have done damage but the extent of their damage is in an internet where practically everything is haram. They may call us deviants but they don’t single us out, whereas fundamentalists are ferocious against us in particular. 

Finally there is an extremely important point. Now for this, the fault does not lie with progressive muslims but with deceptive media misportrayal. That is the idea that salafism was what caused the barrage of terrorism seen in the last few decades. Various factors push disenfranchised people to join terrorist groups that recruit them and indoctrinate them in certain ideologies. It turns out that, contrary to what was often said, that ideology was not Salafism. Neither did the terrorists' financing and media networks have connections to Salafis.

The real ideology that promoted terrorism was, unsurprisingly, Islamism. They wanted to fuel worldwide hateful sentiments against Muslims (which sadly happened) so that muslims get dejected by hate and come closer to islamism (which thankfully didn't happen :D). After the embarrassing, colossal failure, the islamists sure had an incentive to lay the blame elsewhere to save their reputation among Muslims. Many journalists naively reported that Salafis were terrorists using whatever feeble links they could find. 

Since a number of terrorists were formerly salafis, the media highlighted how their salafi backgrounds may have influenced their extremism, hence the name Salafi-Jihadists. What was downplayed, or entirely ignored was how they only entered the terror field after reading islamist literature or affiliating with islamists. 

A select few terrorist groups did have salafist -sounding names but a closer look would betray their islamist origins. And while some terrorists did cite figures that salafis cite, this was usually something they carried on from their salafi background and they didn't cite them for the same reasons. 

In any case, nothing justified labeling terrorists as Salafi without specifying that they were invariably heavily influenced by islamism. The literature they read was primarily by Islamist ideologues and what they write read exactly like it. From their anthems alone, you can discern Islamist ideology without any traces of Salafi thought. An example is the "Tareeq ul hayaa" or "way of life" - an islamist dog whistle and core part of their creed. 

All of them take from Maududi, via Qutb, or from ideologies adjacent to theirs. NOT Wahhab! The founders of most if not all such terror groups had Islamist literature and other factors ofcourse as their driving force. The political scientist Fawaz Gerges, who surveyed hundreds of terrorists, confirmed that Qutb was their inspiration. Qutb transferred Maududi's ideology to the Middle East and won all these converts, including some who may have been Salafis, to Islamism. Salafi-Jihadists themselves form a tiny proportion of all Islamist terrorists who come from various schools of thoughts.

And we know for sure they are heavily Islamist-influenced because they have a word for those that aren't: Madkhalis.

Most of the people assumed by many progressives to be Salafi do not align with Salafiyyah with the exception of those that do who are usually Madkhali. It's unfortunate then, that Madkhali-Salafis have become the main target and haven't been distinguished. It's also unfortunate that so many fundamentalist preachers are traced back to Wahhab even when there is no such link. Mohammad Hijab once literally called Mohammed Ibn AbdulWahab a deviant. With that in mind, would calling Hijab a Salafi Wahabi make sense?

So when Islamists or Islamist-Salafis refute Madkhali-Salafis, they are not doing it out of any good intent or progressiveness. Quite the opposite, actually. Make no mistake, Madkhali Salafis, or at least the uber conservative ones, can be insufferable but they are far from the only ones who want to keep societies conservative.

All trads are insufferable as far as vomiting their views on others, wanting a rigid conservative society, and pushing people away from the religion due to their equating of conservatism and religiosity. Just ask anyone from these other groups on their thoughts on women participating in the public sphere or being able to directly get a divorce. Yeah.

The main takeaway from this post: Trad is a better term for those that our positions conflict with. It includes all traditionalist conservatives from all branches of islam and not just salafism and we shouldn’t fixate on any single group. 

Fun fact: Rashid Rida was a Wahhabi Salafi and also a modernist, and this is most likely where the misconception that the early islamic modernists called themselves Salafi comes from. It sounds bizarre but as mentioned before, their only defining feature was in Aqeedah. Everything else about them was pre-existing and common with other trads. 

Resolution# 2

Be more confident as Muslims

Now this resolution isn't based on any observations, it's only a push towards what should be our ideal attitude on a group and personal level.

Despite the difficult experiences we have with trads, do not adopt a full victim mentality. That is because the trends indicate that the Muslim world is heading in the progressive direction. Countries all over the middle east, southeast asia, central asia etc have made significant progress in human rights, gender equality and other areas. They all have women's rights commissions and this even includes countries with sharia laws like Brunei. Believe it or not, some muslim countries are actually ahead of non-Muslim countries in this.

Knowing that, avoid feeling defeated as we aren't a battered minority but really perhaps are the silent majority (granted you will have to slightly broaden the definition of progressive to see it this way). Though there is still room for a lot more progress and edification, it's not going back no matter how much trads lament.

Not saying don't vent (this is a vent lol) but just be more confident. Trad viewpoints don't define islam so try to be as unfazed by them as possible– the religion is not their property. Fewer muslims are seeing irrational interpretations as the only true islam and that should translate to a higher confidence. 

Under no circumstances are we lesser muslims and we are not following a downsized islam. We follow islam how we believe it should be followed. 

With that, may God make your new year a fruitful and blessed one. Ameen.

If you have any suggested resolutions for the community yourself, share them.