The History Of Salafism I

Epilogue:

I harken back to the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo magazine headquarters in Paris, France in the first week of 2015…perpetrated by affiliates of “Ansar al-Sharia” [Helpers Of Islamic Law].  Islamic apologists chortled that Islam’s prophet would never have condoned such horrific conduct.  It is not merely that such a contention is false; it’s that it is OBVIOUSLY false.

There can be little doubt that MoM would have unequivocally–and enthusiastically endorsed–the heinous deeds of the Kouachi brothers on that fateful day in early 2015.  Indeed, the brothers were “mu-jahideen” [“those who struggle in the cause of god”]; which is to say that they fashioned themselves as modern-day Mohammedan “ghazi” [“raiders”].  To fail to recognize this is to betray ignorance.

Both brothers would have wholeheartedly concurred with Karen Armstrong’s glib declaration that MoM is “a prophet for our time.”  (This perverse irony was probably lost on Armstrong and her ilk.) 

Such Reactionary thinking was not conjured from thin air.  It was born of a serious effort to get back to the Sunnah as it existed in the days of the Sahabah (and Salaf)…and continues to the present day in Salafi / Wahhabi circles. Even the most rudimentary knowledge of Mohammedan precedent makes it plain that the Kouachi brothers’ deeds were in keeping with the Sunnah, as originally conceived.

It is worth recalling the declaration of Khalid ibn al-Walid (one of the most vaunted companions of MoM), addressed to non-Muslims: “I bring the men who desire death as ardently as you desire life.”  This was the most celebrated military general under both MoM and Abu Bakr.  In order to get this to fit a more placid narrative, one would be forced to fashion the enterprise of Khalid ibn al-Walid as a humanitarian outreach program.

Ten months later, when jihadists attacked Paris on behalf of “Daesh” (the Islamic State), slaughtering 130 innocent civilians, Progressive voices within the Ummah again (sporadically) deployed the de rigueur expressions of opprobrium.  Note, however, that they could not do so by claiming that the assaults contravened the teachings of MoM (or that their holy book forbade such acts).  All they had recourse to were secular moral principles.  Consequently, they could only issue statements condemning the actions as antithetical to their own (liberalized) version of the Faith.  This is a good thing; but it must be recognized for what it is: A revamped version of the Sunnah.

To reform something that was dysfunctional, then pretend that one has not reformed it (that it had been that way all along) is disingenuous.  Those who insist that militant jihadists’ behavior is counter to MoM’s example are either deliberately lying or–though well-intentioned–haven’t the faintest clue what they are talking about.

We should be under no illusions that MoM took kindly to being criticized–let alone mocked.  The authors of Charlie Hebdo would most certainly have been on his hit-list; though not necessarily for the pictorial representations.  (Taboos against visual portrayals were a later development.)  

The question arises: Would *I* be on his hit list?  I suspect not.  It is only through modern eyes that the present assessment comes out looking uncharitable.  To the eyes of the Sahabah / Salaf, though, it would be seen for what it is: An accurate characterization.  From that perspective, I have not disparaged the Islamic legacy; I have merely described it.

The irony is that Salafis’ adherence to their prophet’s teachings–as well as reading of the Koran–is more honest than is that of many Islamic apologists, who are resort to white-washing campaigns in an effort to burnish the legacy of their Faith.  Unfortunately, it is the most militant of Salafis who actually take bold action; whereas Progressively-inclined Muslim leaders only get around to issuing public statements.

More to the point: One does not need to lie about the past in order to move into the future.