Popular media tosses the word Salafism as lightly as
they dwell on the weather forecast on a nice summer day! The concepts and
implication relevant to Salafism suffer from a crude oversimplification. This
is further reinforced by the fragility still inherent in the Tunisian start-up
democracy and its start-up free press. There is more to Salafists than “salafis
are men with beards and white dresses”. There is also more to Salafism than
Salafism is reactionary and regressive.
Because I am nice (!!!??? :p) this dogmatic view of a
large and diverse group is going to be refuted.
I shall try to keep my essay short enough. The reader
will have to excuse me and keep in mind that this is a synopsis of a lengthy
philosophical research. If certain arguments or concepts remain obscure, please
feel free to contact me for clarifications (being nice again!!??).
General definitions and concepts :
The word Salaf itself technically denotes the
righteous muslims during the 300 first years of Islamic history, approximately
starting from year 600. This is based on the prophetic saying: ‘’the most
righteous people shall live my century, then the one following, then the one
following.’’[1]
These people are considered most righteous because of the proximity they enjoy
with the prophetic sources.
Salafism in general, is the movement seeking salvation
through the guidance and model of the righteous Salaf. Two major subgroups
exist within Salafism: Jihadi Salafism, believing that armed struggle is the
best way to attain a truly Islamic life. The other branch is Scientific
Salafism, which attempts to replicate the logical structures behind Islamic ruling
of the Salaf.
Salafism a “progressive force”:
One of the major attributes to Salafism in Islamic
thought is its methodological quest. Early Salafist scholars were faced with
growing divides between Islamic philosophies. Thus they attempted to answer
these issues with an increased rationality. Salafism’s attempt at formulating a
method through which knowledge should be evaluated became the backbone of the
“Scientific method” in Islamic thought.
This is a major contribution as Salafism rationalized
Islamic thought: Not only were the outcomes of a cogitation to be evaluated,
but also the method upon which it was obtained. There is an attempt at creating
a universal method, a method that is Godly in nature rather than based on
emotional stimulus. In practice, this means that Salafism encourages the use of
logical computations. As surprising as it sounds, by attempting to formulate
Godly methods of thought, Salafism enables Islamic thought with order and
rationality. Another example of this rationality is the disregard for “false
battles”: Salafists usually refuse to discuss whether God has a Hand or not…
Another “progressive” aspect of Salafism in Islamic
thought is its unifying drive. Salafism reinforces the monotheistic aspect of
Islam. It calls for humans to be freed from the influence of any human power.
Salafist have always fought bitterly against attempts to create intermediate powers
between subject and their god.
Moreover, Salafism has a formidable capability to
rejuvenate itself. A striking example is the success of the Nour Salafist party
in Egypt elections. Salafists in Egypt have refused to adhere to the political
process for years. After the revolution it only took a few months for the Nour
to organize and win an impressive 2nd place in the elections. Armed
Jihadi Salafist groups have also proved to become increasingly flexible: The “Jihadist
movements of Egypt” successfully reviewed their reliance on Violence as a mean
for change. So called “revisions” have led the movement to accept, embrace and
use cinema and other means that were considered unholy. During the formation of
its new democracies, revolutionary countries (Tunisia, Libya and Egypt) need
such adaptation prowess in order to reach necessary consensus.
Salafism a”regressive force”:
Pluralism is still hard to accept for many Salafists.
There are tendencies within the movement to negate the legitimacy of other
schools of thought. Much of the Salafist discourse assumes that there is no
possibility to err or at least that Salafists will always be closer to the
truth. When designating themselves, the Salafist phraseology is a romanticized and idealized one. Words
such as the “pure” and the “righteous” and terms relevant to the sacred are
used in near self-veneration. This self-veneration, even though it hasn’t
reached unsupportable levels, is still dangerous. For if one group starts to
believe with too much zeal that their party is incapable of error, errors will
not be corrected and the movement becomes destructive both for its environment
and itself.
Often enough, Salafist morality refuses to take into
account the advances in different scientific and human studies fields. Thus
Judgment of the present is often distorted and outdated. Given the inevitable linguistic
changes, the judgments obtained as a result of Salafist methods could indeed be
just “what it would have been” 14 centuries ago. “Al Jabri” clearly diagnosed
this unhistoricality: “Salafist understanding of heritage in a non-historical
one, thus it can only produce only one genre of understanding of heritage:
heritage centered one. Heritage contains it but it cannot contain heritage. It
is heritage repeating itself. ”
As a way of concluding:
As a relatively new movement to the wider public
sphere, Salafists are still underrepresented in public platforms. The use of
secondary sources is all too prevalent when issues relate to Salafism.
There is indeed some truth in the general belief that
Salafism is a threat to Islamic societies. Nevertheless, Salafism is a much
more complex philosophy with very important progressive sides.
And more broadly: Only time will reveal the
constructive potential of the bearded men in white dresses. Or not.
Lebounce
This article is the collection of the central ideas present in IB philosophy EE paper by the author. paper handed in during 2012 to the IBO, author enjoys full copyright.
