Brother SaqibSaab, you have accidentally misrepresented (because you may have misunderstood) the context in which i was asking that question (if you are referring to me).

Sidi, I’m not sure where you got the impression that I was questioning the role of the science of hadeeth itself, I was merely pointing out that John Voll’s thesis isn’t conclusively established in the Academic tradition and there are alternative views. If you are going to cite a thinker, it would be wise to give your readers a more balanced view by showing the arguments of people who criticized them. What I believe as a traditionalist is not the issue here, I obviously recognize the importance of the science of hadeeth and its contributions to Islamic revival. The issue is a historical claim.

Dallal’s claim is that while some of the interactions between the various scholars of hadeeth was quite extensive, for others, it was minimal and even if they did interact, his argument is that it didn’t effect the paradigms which they espoused to revival which were entirely distinct. If one scrutinizes the ideas of bid’a, Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio and Shaykh Muhammad Ibn AbdulWahhab were pretty diverse. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s ideas regarding the Islamic sciences seemed to be more of rejection (ilm ul kalam, tasawwuf) rather than Shah Waliullah’s approach towards synthesis. Imam Sanusi’s seemingly apolitical views contrast with the views of the political-military actions of Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio and Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahhab. While the Sunnah played a clear role in all of the movements, they interpreted the Sunnah (and conversely, bid’a) differently as well. Moreover, it shouldn’t come to a surprise that they discussed the Sunnah so extensively in their works as they were scholars of hadeeth. So according to Dallal, the similarities are inherent within the nature of Islam itself and the science of hadeeth and the differences between these Scholars was too divergent to be classified as emanating from a single cause. His argument focuses on the causal disconnect, but he doesn’t reject a “but-for” causation connection. He merely states that its a bit of a stretch that the hadeeth scholarship circle in Madinah “caused” the other Islamic revivalist movements. His view is that it merely became a focal point for revivalist movements that were occurring anyway and it had more to do with geography (madinah) then with ideology. That’s Dallal’s argument in a nutshell.

Again, what Dallal believes and what I believe are entirely different. I also wanted to reiterate that if you’re going to present Voll as a credible source, then you should present Dallal as well.

On December 7, 2007 at 6:40 pm jinnzaman Said:

While John Voll makes an interesting thesis, subsequent Western Academicians have raised some very interesting objections to the notion that a small circle of hadeeth scholars in Madinah were responsible for conecting the major resistance/revivalist movements during the modern era. They point out that the very nature of the science of hadeeth scholarship is to create chains of transmission. However, merely being a link in such a chain did not necessarily result in a massive transmission of knowledge. Some authors point out that while many of these ‘Ulema held common chains of transmission, they had radically divergent paradigms of revival ranging from the scholarly tradition to politics to militant movements and differed on key core issues ranging from following a madhab, tasawwuf, bid’a, jihad, the role of Islam in politics, and even how to respond to European expansion and whether to respond at all.

See “The Origins and Objectives of Islamic Revivalist Thought, 1750-1850″ by Ahmed Dallal who compares Shaykh Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab, Shah Waliullah, Imam Sanusi, and Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio.

Abul-Hussein said:

AS

While I can appreciate your remarks they do not fit very tightly with the reality and character of revival but are marked by a sociological analysis that is consumed by the fallacy of historicism and by holding to the idea of that revivers held “radically divergent paradigms of revival” we slide into relativity. If what you claim is true then there is no such thing as revival but rather what there is the assertion and dominance of various readings of Islam brought about by various figures. In fact, there is no Islam according to this logic there are Islams. So the Prophet (saw) did not bring constant principles that constitute Islam in this scenario (Naudhu Billah) but rather brought a version a reading of what Islam is.

Given the problems that emerge from your reading we need to correct our understanding by way of clarifying some points.

The first being most scholars who engaged in the revival effort of the 18th century had commonality in isnad meaning somewhere along the line of their scholarly career they studied with the same teachers or had a common link in their isnad. It surprises me that you would belittle the science of hadith by seemingly supporting a notion that its aim is to multiple chains. This is not correct the science of hadith is not aimed at multiplying chains it has other ends which are not the topic of this entry.

Secondly, as a traditionalist I thought that you would see the value of isnad in Islamic scholarship but rather you went with a different interpretation of events one that is sociological.

Thirdly, the article that you refer to, after reading it, I have to say it has no support for your claim regarding hadith scholars. Although it does outline some ideas of the Imam of revival it is a defense against the tendency in Western scholarship to label mujadideen of this period (18th century) as fundamentalists as Dallal himself pointed out. So his method is to emphasis the uniqueness of each scholar he deals with so as to finally isolate Shaikh Muhammad Bin Abul Wahab (r). One of the things that we learn from the masterpiece of Saviours Of Islamic Spirit is that revival consists of certain constant principles that are unchanging and we see this to be the case in the study of various diverse figures attributed to revivalism. So while you following Dallal in his emphasis on flux and change and disparity I emphasize congruity, constancy and interconnectedness after all at minimum he bunched a group of diverse figures and discusses them under the idea of revival they must have some commonality in order for this to be effected.

It is quite clear that scholars involved in revival had some differences but not to the degree that you claim. They all agreed on the reality and aim of tasawwuf, ijtihad, and they all addressed bi’dah and they all dealt with the problem of outside influences and none were against madhabs but rather saw a problem in madhab bias these are all constants that permeate in the thought of these Imams of revival. Now maybe in detail they differed but that differing is not such that it dissolves the constants which show a common thread in their efforts.

In addition, they are all tied together by scholarly isnad. Revival is not about producing knowledge it is about reviving what has gone into neglect. If you do a survey of the works of the Imams of Revival rather than read tertiary sources regarding their ideas it becomes clear that revival (tajdeed) is imprinted in their methods and ideas and there is more that unites their efforts than there is that makes them so unique that they have nothing in common.

We must also mention that Islamically we hold tajdeed to be a spiritual phenomena as well as a human effort after the analysis is done it is inspired by Allah (swt). Sometimes the sociology of ideas misses this point in the name of objectivity and under the influence of positivism and materialism. Upon reading, the work of Shaikh Uthman Dan Fodio (r), Shah Wali Ullah, Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab and Imam Sanusi it is clear that there are common threads between these scholars. These threads connect them to others like Ahmad Sir Hindi, Shaukani, Hasan al Bannah, Imam Wazier, Said Nursi and a whole list of others so that what emerges is that the Ummah for the last three centuries has been pushed by a great number of revivers and this becomes clear upon doing the home work and looking at source texts.

Jinnzaman if you are serious take another look at the articles and go to some primary sources then let us continue this exchange, inshAllah. Also listen to Shaikh Abdullah Hakim Quick lecture on Uthman Dan Fodio he did a Phd on him and he lists a scholarly isnad that ties most of the revivers together by way of isnad this in itself has nothing to do with hadith sciences directly but rather is a product of it. This chain that he mentions also shows the role of the scholars of Hind in the effort of revival and when we look a little deeper we learn of the interconnection between Yemen and Hind and when we look a little deeper we discover a connection between Egypt and Timbuktu and Iraq and Egypt and Iraq and Dehli and Turkey and we see a connection between Timbuktu and the Maghrib and Maghrib and Granada and Granada and Al Andalus and Al Andalus and the Hijaz etc. Revival is a continuous effort that happens every century, I believe.

In Islamic sciences we have something called kulliyaat and juziyaat or as it is said in philosophy -Universals and Particulars there is also Substance and Accidents. You are focusing on particulars and accidents and leaving aside the crux -the constants. Contrary to the popular idea of “Islams” Traditional Islam, Political Islam, Radical Islam, Salafist Islam etc. there is only “Islam” this ideas of Islams is born in the halls of anthropology. We can’t find support for the idea of Islams in the Qur’an mention is made of Islam in the singular only. By reducing “revival” to the idea of revivalist projects what we get is the idea of Islams. In effect this translates into relativising Islam, reducing it to cultural phenomena and custom equal to any other culture or custom. This is one of the fundamental problems with using Western research methods to study Islam that is they are rooted in relativistic Western Philosophy which claims an objectivity which is non-existent.

Allahu Al’am Wa Al-Aleem Wa Salatu Wa Salam Ala Al Mustafa

Abul-Hussein

See “The Origins and Objectives of Islamic Revivalist Thought, 1750-1850″ by Ahmed Dallal who compares Shaykh Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab, Shah Waliullah, Imam Sanusi, and Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio.

“(But I must know) do they or do they not ascribe to the books by Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab?” he asked sincerely.

I politely asked him, “Have you ever even read a book by Ibn Abdul Wahhab? Kitab at-Tawheed is literally a compilation of ayats from the Quran and Hadith…”

Interesting post, Imam Suhaib. Stay strong.

Saqib

May Allah reward him and people like him; who uphold the Tauhid&sunna and rejects shirk&bida and its allies. stop using the term wahabi movement because there is no such a thing. Rather there is taking the quran andsunna with the understanding of pious predessors.

May Allah reward him and people like him; who uphold the Tauhid&sunna and rejects shirk&bida and its allies

1- There was a period ranging between between 6 to 8 centuries according to different accounts where the vast majority of scholars among the 4 madhhabs fell into complete taqlid. This period is known for the time in which the doors of Ijtihad were closed. This created a block of rulings now seen in many taqleedy or comparitve fiqh books where it seems there was an agreed upon opinion or strong Jumhoor about many issues. In reality, it wouldn’t seem as such if Ijtihad was more prevelant throughout that huge block of time.

2- As far as the common thought about how to be a better Muslim and what makes you a better da’ee or should I say the “Fikr” that had spread across the Muslim lands at that time was known as Sufism. Indiviually, although I have no problem with Sufi orders who are following the Qur’an and Sunnah, I still think all would be better off if we just called ourselves Muslims and that our scholars would all focus on the tarbiyyah of sound knowledge, akhlaq, dhikr, and the hope, fear, and love of Allah without calling it other than “the Sunnah”, thus leaving behind us the baggage of Sufism. At any rate back to the point at hand the fact of the matter is that man of these Sufi orders were led by uneducated and/or purposely following innovation and even in lesser cases Shirk for delusions of grandeur. *Wait a second my dear Sufi Brothers and Sisters before jumping into war with me read on*

Now when looking at the thought (Fikr) of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab in light of these two points. He and his teachers (many of whom were following sufi reform tariqah’s) simply came to the realization that the danger in these forms of extreme taqleed has shown its ugly face in many facets of the weakness of our Ummah. The reality is that most of this taqleed stemmed from an innocent respect, esteem, and reverance for these great teachers that they learned from. But it was the Prophet who said “laa takunoo imm’ah”-Don’t be followers. This DOESN’T mean leave our vast legacy of scholarship and interpret Islam on your own as we some some doing incorrectly in the name of As-Salafiyyah. What it means is follow, respect and take from those of knowledge but always be on gaurd and tune into your own indivual heart of hearts with what you do know of the Qur’an and Sunnah and don’t blindly follow anyone. Don’t become carbon copies or clones. Follow Islam to the best of your ability and know that no one is on the Haqq but rasool Allah (saws) and his companions so follow their prevelant practices (manhaj) and don’t follow some twisted interpretation of one or two uncommon events because some Shaikh told you this is the way to worship. Regardless of the shaikhs knowledge or piety he remains a person who is fallable. Accounting the self (Muhasabatun-nafs) is not just in character- more importantly it is in understanding Islam, it’s pioneers and it’s texts.

Excuse me for the rant. The fact is that there were many Sufi’s who were were sincere followers of the pure Islam according to clear authenitc texts and these students of knowledge leaned towards reform and as we see some of them were Abdul-Wahhab’s teachers. They saw the ignorance, bid’ah and shirk and wanted to do away with it.

In conclusion Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab was just a scholar like many others. He was not above mistake as in my humble opinion some of his postions have been clearly refuted. His call was for us to not enter/remain into these dangerous forms of taqleed and for this Ummah to purify itself from the influence of man and his innovative tendencies (look at the christians and jews) and review our thought and practice making sure it is in accordance with CLEAR authentic texts and the prevelant methodology of the early generations. Interestingly from reading his books i see a very simple approach to dealing with Islam that makes life and worship easy. This is contrary to what I thought about him from some “quotations (attacks)” I had heard before seeking the truth for myself.

That being said I think many of his followers misunderstood him and took some of his ideas to the extreme thereby creating fitnah. I encourage anyone to read the introduction of durur as-siniyyah http://www.dorar.net/book_list.php?book_type=2 or usool ath-thalatha http://www.kalemat.org/sections.php?so=va&aid=266. If you had a bad view of him you will see that your beef is not with him. Many presidents and congresses have used the US system unjustly and went to extremes, Do we blame, Washington, Jefforson, Franklin, and Adams???