Comments on: Why militants love Islam

By: dante

dante — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:37:00 +0000

Anyone who visits Afghanistan will now see that these places of shirk have ceased, and the annual celebrations at the mausoleums have been stopped. And likewise, the celebrations which were a remainder from the religion of the Magians which were acted upon before the arrival of the Taliban have been stopped. And also, the (Islamic) Emirate has ended those things which used to take place in the city of Mazar-e-Sharif after they had conquered it- things such as celebrations around that which was claimed to be the grave of 'Ali (ra). So these things have been put to an end from the first day from a decree from the Council of Scholars. And the women have been prevented from visiting the graves, and signs have been put on the entrances of the cemeteries explaining the manners of Ziyarah according to the Shari'ah...

[source]

By: Yaser

Yaser — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 15:01:00 +0000

I find you’re point of veiw very well articulated and interesting to read on these issues. Though I disagree that the Taleban were heavily influenced by the ‘Wahhabis’ they were definitely infuenced. Thabet is right, they are Deobandis, but they are also not the most brightest and well educated people, especially when you look at the higher level leadership (Mullah Omar, Mullah in Afghan scholarship hierarchy is not high, basically just above a student, not a Maulana or anything, yet he was at the top). What you may want to look into is the rise of the Taleban in terms of the other groups after the 1980s. The most Salafi-type group, the group that had the largest composition of Arabs and its leader spoke extermely eloquent Arabic, which he used to recruit Arabs, as well as reciever of a lot of aid during the 80s, the group of Abdul Rabb Rasool Sayyaf.

By: thabet

thabet — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:45:00 +0000

The Taliban were (are?) Deobandis and not Salafis. Deobandism is accepted as part of the Islamic tradition in India and follow Hanafi fiqah; they’re likely to be Maturidis in theology. Though on the Indian subcontinent Deobandis and Brelvis accuse each other being heretical or even kafirs in popular polemics, they are both considered Sunni traditionalists (the sniping between then is really over ritual and legalistic matters — the Brelvis are popularised as prefering a more devotional and less legalistic approach, whereas correct fiqh is important to Deobandis. Note that both are considered “deviated” by many Salafis.)

Also you seem to have a very jaundiced view of Ibn Taymiyya. Indeed, it’s a very Salafi-like view of an individual who is a little more complex than his modern day champions — and detractors — would suggest. Afterall, he wrote commentaries on the works of famous Sufis, was a Hanbali jurist and discussed some intricate kalam issues (one claim made by a scholar about Ibn Taymiyya was that his arguments, though anti-kalam, were all “kalamistic”). All three knowledges being part and parcel of the Islamic traditions.

salaam

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:29:00 +0000

A term to identify the extremist/violent interpretation of Islam, one that seems to be coming into more frequent use is “neo-salafist”. The term, created by Anthony Cordesman at CSIS, seeks to create a useful identification tag that does not malign the non-violent Salafists and Wahhabis.

While the latter two are certainly fundamentalist and arguably “extremist” (depending on your POV, of course), they tend not to be violent and follow a more quietist approach to religion.

That is clearly not the case of the violent, extremist, militants who use Islam to justify–or even define–their acts.