From al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa…

by Zafar Bangash

The occupiers of the two Harams appear determined to destroy both for their nefarious agendas. The House of Saud and the Zionists are two faces of the same coin.  


The Saudi occupiers of the Arabian Peninsula are busy with a similar project that predates the Zionists’ vandalism in al-Quds by decades. The Saudi plans are even more dangerous. They have already destroyed 90% of all the historical sites in Makkah and the rest are about to be bulldozed under the spurious pretext of expanding al-Masjid al-Haram that houses the Ka‘bah. Saudi court ‘ulama have issued fatwas to do so. Aside from the fact that there are other ways to provide space for the hujjaj, the Saudis do not own the two holy cities; they are the common heritage, like al-Masjid al-Aqsa, of the entire Muslim Ummah and all humanity. They have no right to take such unilateral decisions and embark on a destructive spree as they did early last month. They destroyed the historic columns commemorating the noble Messenger’s (pbuh) ascent to heaven (mi‘raj) that links al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa. The Qur’an in its 17th chapter, Surah al-Isra’ or Surah Bani Isra’il, describes this nightly journey.

With Hajj season now over, bulldozers have revved up their engines to begin demolition. One place in particular is their target: the house where the noble Messenger (pbuh) was born. Previous Saudi attempts were stayed when people urged the Makkah municipality to spare it and turn it into a library. It may be difficult to save it this time unless there is worldwide pressure. A royal palace for the aging monarch Abdullah is being built there. It will be five times larger than the current palace and built into a mountain overlooking the Haram. Clearly, in Saudi thinking, the king’s palace is more important than preservation of the house where the noble Messenger (pbuh) was born.

Relics of the Saudi ruling family including items linked with ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Saud are carefully preserved in a museum but anything linked with the blessed life of the noble Messenger (pbuh) is being destroyed. The same mindset is at work in Madinah whose people provided sanctuary to the noble Messenger (pbuh) when the Makkan mushriks drove him out of his city of birth. The Saudis now want to “complete” the unfinished business of the mushriks by demolishing the house where he was born. They want to go even further: the Saudis have the audacity to suggest removing his body from the present grave. It is in the dwelling where he resided in Madinah. The pretext is the same: expansion of al-Masjid al-Nabawi. Other Islamic monuments are similarly targeted.

The idea to remove the body of the noble Messenger (pbuh) from its present grave has been brought up a number of times, the latest in August 2014 when an article appeared in the Royal Journal of the Haramayn. The brainchild of one ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Shabal, a professor at Muhammad ibn Saud University in Riyadh, the 61-page document is both brazen and scandalous. It has been circulated among the supervisors of al-Masjid al-Nabawi and makes the same sacrilegious suggestion as previous rantings of Saudi court ‘ulama: the green dome over Rawdhah al-Mutahharah should be destroyed and the Prophet’s (pbuh) body relocated to an unmarked grave in Jannah al-Baqi‘! After protests from Muslims — and indeed some non-Muslims — the Saudi regime issued a terse statement saying no final decision has been made. They did not deny the plan.

The question that must be asked is: why are the Zionist occupiers of the Holy Land and Saudi occupiers of the Arabian Peninsula so determined to wipe out all traces of Islamic heritage and history? One can see what the Zionists are up to: they want to wipe out Islamic/Palestinian history and since al-Masjid al-Aqsa stands as a symbol of that identity, they are targeting it. Despite their demented thinking, the Zionists know their legitimacy is not complete without their taking control of al-Masjid al-Aqsa and building the “third temple” in its place. While the Zionists’ criminal enterprise must be vigorously resisted, what reason is there for the Saudis’ vandalism in the Haramayn? Unlike the Zionists, they call themselves Muslims yet they have no regard for Muslim sensitivity or sentiment. They seem to be gripped by extreme hatred of Islam, the noble Messenger (pbuh) — nastaghfir-allah — and Islamic history.     

The Zionists and the Saudis appear to share a common hatred of Islam. Will Muslims rise up to prevent this or allow their history, historical monuments and indeed their sacred sites to be desecrated in such a manner?
 Islam’s holy sites are under attack. From al-Masjid al-Haram in Makkah to al-Masjid al-Aqsa in al-Quds (Jerusalem), the occupiers of the holy sites have set their sights on destruction. In Makkah and Madinah, the Saudis are busy wiping out the last vestiges of Islamic heritage under the pretext of expansion of the two hold places. The Zionists are busy trying to physically take control of al-Masjid al-Aqsa in al-Quds (Jerusalem). Zionist occupation troops have attacked Palestinians trying to defend the sacred sanctuary of al-Haram al-Sharif that houses both al-Masjid al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock (symbolized by the huge golden dome) in Jerusalem. 

 Rabbinical law prohibits Jews from stepping on the noble sanctuary lest they desecrate it. There is even a board erected at one of the entrances warning Jews not to trespass al-Haram al-Sharif. Observant Jews — groups like Neturei Karta — have spoken out against such trespassing and condemned Zionist attempts to occupy the holy sanctuary. Zionist zealots allege that al-Masjid al-Aqsa is built on the site where the Temple of King Solomon (the Prophet Suleiman – a) once stood. There is no proof of this. In fact, the temple was destroyed twice: in 586bce by the Babylonians and in 70ce by the Romans. The latter even dug out the foundations. 

 Since occupying the whole of Jerusalem in June 1967 (the Zionists had already occupied the western part in 1948), the Zionists have attempted to take over the holy sanctuary through a process of creeping annexation. For decades they have excavated under al-Masjid al-Aqsa ostensibly to find the foundations of the “lost temple.” They have found none. The real aim is to weaken the foundations of the Masjid to cause its collapse so that the Zionists can build their temple on its ruins.

Al-Masjid al-Aqsa has existed for nearly 1,400 years. It came into Muslim stewardship in 15ah/638ce during the khilafah of ‘Umar (ra) and but for the brief interregnum during the Crusaders’ occupation (1099–1187), it has remained under Muslim oversight. It is built on the spot where the noble Messenger (pbuh) led all the other Prophets (Å) in salah (prayer) before his mi‘raj (ascension) in the 12th year of his mission in Makkah. Why should Zionist mythology take precedence over prophetic/Islamic history? 


 Not only Palestinians but Muslims elsewhere have expressed grave concern about the Zionists’ plan to annex al-Masjid al-Aqsa. Zionist squatters (misnomered as “settlers”) have on numerous occasions trespassed on the holy sanctuary. They are pushing for the “right” to worship there. These alien invaders have come to Palestine from Europe and North America. Their agenda is to dispossess the Palestinians of their land, homes, villages, towns and even the sacred sites such as al-Haram al-Sharif. They want to wipe out Palestinian history and memory; in fact Islamic history and memory.

The Saudi occupiers of the Arabian Peninsula are busy with a similar project that predates the Zionists’ vandalism in al-Quds by decades. The Saudi plans are even more dangerous. They have already destroyed 90% of all the historical sites in Makkah and the rest are about to be bulldozed under the spurious pretext of expanding al-Masjid al-Haram that houses the Ka‘bah. Saudi court ‘ulama have issued fatwas to do so. Aside from the fact that there are other ways to provide space for the hujjaj, the Saudis do not own the two holy cities; they are the common heritage, like al-Masjid al-Aqsa, of the entire Muslim Ummah and all humanity. They have no right to take such unilateral decisions and embark on a destructive spree as they did early last month. They destroyed the historic columns commemorating the noble Messenger’s (pbuh) ascent to heaven (mi‘raj) that links al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa. The Qur’an in its 17th chapter, Surah al-Isra’ or Surah Bani Isra’il, describes this nightly journey.

With Hajj season now over, bulldozers have revved up their engines to begin demolition. One place in particular is their target: the house where the noble Messenger (pbuh) was born. Previous Saudi attempts were stayed when people urged the Makkah municipality to spare it and turn it into a library. It may be difficult to save it this time unless there is worldwide pressure. A royal palace for the aging monarch Abdullah is being built there. It will be five times larger than the current palace and built into a mountain overlooking the Haram. Clearly, in Saudi thinking, the king’s palace is more important than preservation of the house where the noble Messenger (pbuh) was born.

Relics of the Saudi ruling family including items linked with ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Saud are carefully preserved in a museum but anything linked with the blessed life of the noble Messenger (pbuh) is being destroyed. The same mindset is at work in Madinah whose people provided sanctuary to the noble Messenger (pbuh) when the Makkan mushriks drove him out of his city of birth. The Saudis now want to “complete” the unfinished business of the mushriks by demolishing the house where he was born. They want to go even further: the Saudis have the audacity to suggest removing his body from the present grave. It is in the dwelling where he resided in Madinah. The pretext is the same: expansion of al-Masjid al-Nabawi. Other Islamic monuments are similarly targeted.


The Saudi occupiers of the Arabian Peninsula are busy with a similar project that predates the Zionists’ vandalism in al-Quds by decades. The Saudi plans are even more dangerous. They have already destroyed 90% of all the historical sites in Makkah and the rest are about to be bulldozed under the spurious pretext of expanding al-Masjid al-Haram that houses the Ka‘bah. Saudi court ‘ulama have issued fatwas to do so. Aside from the fact that there are other ways to provide space for the hujjaj, the Saudis do not own the two holy cities; they are the common heritage, like al-Masjid al-Aqsa, of the entire Muslim Ummah and all humanity. They have no right to take such unilateral decisions and embark on a destructive spree as they did early last month. They destroyed the historic columns commemorating the noble Messenger’s (pbuh) ascent to heaven (mi‘raj) that links al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa. The Qur’an in its 17th chapter, Surah al-Isra’ or Surah Bani Isra’il, describes this nightly journey.


With Hajj season now over, bulldozers have revved up their engines to begin demolition. One place in particular is their target: the house where the noble Messenger (pbuh) was born. Previous Saudi attempts were stayed when people urged the Makkah municipality to spare it and turn it into a library. It may be difficult to save it this time unless there is worldwide pressure. A royal palace for the aging monarch Abdullah is being built there. It will be five times larger than the current palace and built into a mountain overlooking the Haram. Clearly, in Saudi thinking, the king’s palace is more important than preservation of the house where the noble Messenger (pbuh) was born.

Relics of the Saudi ruling family including items linked with ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Saud are carefully preserved in a museum but anything linked with the blessed life of the noble Messenger (pbuh) is being destroyed. The same mindset is at work in Madinah whose people provided sanctuary to the noble Messenger (pbuh) when the Makkan mushriks drove him out of his city of birth. The Saudis now want to “complete” the unfinished business of the mushriks by demolishing the house where he was born. They want to go even further: the Saudis have the audacity to suggest removing his body from the present grave. It is in the dwelling where he resided in Madinah. The pretext is the same: expansion of al-Masjid al-Nabawi. Other Islamic monuments are similarly targeted.

The idea to remove the body of the noble Messenger (pbuh) from its present grave has been brought up a number of times, the latest in August 2014 when an article appeared in the Royal Journal of the Haramayn. The brainchild of one ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Shabal, a professor at Muhammad ibn Saud University in Riyadh, the 61-page document is both brazen and scandalous. It has been circulated among the supervisors of al-Masjid al-Nabawi and makes the same sacrilegious suggestion as previous rantings of Saudi court ‘ulama: the green dome over Rawdhah al-Mutahharah should be destroyed and the Prophet’s (pbuh) body relocated to an unmarked grave in Jannah al-Baqi‘! After protests from Muslims — and indeed some non-Muslims — the Saudi regime issued a terse statement saying no final decision has been made. They did not deny the plan.

 The question that must be asked is: why are the Zionist occupiers of the Holy Land and Saudi occupiers of the Arabian Peninsula so determined to wipe out all traces of Islamic heritage and history? One can see what the Zionists are up to: they want to wipe out Islamic/Palestinian history and since al-Masjid al-Aqsa stands as a symbol of that identity, they are targeting it. Despite their demented thinking, the Zionists know their legitimacy is not complete without their taking control of al-Masjid al-Aqsa and building the “third temple” in its place. While the Zionists’ criminal enterprise must be vigorously resisted, what reason is there for the Saudis’ vandalism in the Haramayn? Unlike the Zionists, they call themselves Muslims yet they have no regard for Muslim sensitivity or sentiment. They seem to be gripped by extreme hatred of Islam, the noble Messenger (pbuh) — nastaghfir-allah — and Islamic history.     

The Zionists and the Saudis appear to share a common hatred of Islam. Will Muslims rise up to prevent this or allow their history, historical monuments and indeed their sacred sites to be desecrated in such a manner?

The Saudi occupiers of the Arabian Peninsula are busy with a similar project that predates the Zionists’ vandalism in al-Quds by decades. The Saudi plans are even more dangerous. They have already destroyed 90% of all the historical sites in Makkah and the rest are about to be bulldozed under the spurious pretext of expanding al-Masjid al-Haram that houses the Ka‘bah. Saudi court ‘ulama have issued fatwas to do so. Aside from the fact that there are other ways to provide space for the hujjaj, the Saudis do not own the two holy cities; they are the common heritage, like al-Masjid al-Aqsa, of the entire Muslim Ummah and all humanity. They have no right to take such unilateral decisions and embark on a destructive spree as they did early last month. They destroyed the historic columns commemorating the noble Messenger’s (pbuh) ascent to heaven (mi‘raj) that links al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa. The Qur’an in its 17th chapter, Surah al-Isra’ or Surah Bani Isra’il, describes this nightly journey.

With Hajj season now over, bulldozers have revved up their engines to begin demolition. One place in particular is their target: the house where the noble Messenger (pbuh) was born. Previous Saudi attempts were stayed when people urged the Makkah municipality to spare it and turn it into a library. It may be difficult to save it this time unless there is worldwide pressure. A royal palace for the aging monarch Abdullah is being built there. It will be five times larger than the current palace and built into a mountain overlooking the Haram. Clearly, in Saudi thinking, the king’s palace is more important than preservation of the house where the noble Messenger (pbuh) was born.

Relics of the Saudi ruling family including items linked with ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Saud are carefully preserved in a museum but anything linked with the blessed life of the noble Messenger (pbuh) is being destroyed. The same mindset is at work in Madinah whose people provided sanctuary to the noble Messenger (pbuh) when the Makkan mushriks drove him out of his city of birth. The Saudis now want to “complete” the unfinished business of the mushriks by demolishing the house where he was born. They want to go even further: the Saudis have the audacity to suggest removing his body from the present grave. It is in the dwelling where he resided in Madinah. The pretext is the same: expansion of al-Masjid al-Nabawi. Other Islamic monuments are similarly targeted.

The idea to remove the body of the noble Messenger (pbuh) from its present grave has been brought up a number of times, the latest in August 2014 when an article appeared in the Royal Journal of the Haramayn. The brainchild of one ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Shabal, a professor at Muhammad ibn Saud University in Riyadh, the 61-page document is both brazen and scandalous. It has been circulated among the supervisors of al-Masjid al-Nabawi and makes the same sacrilegious suggestion as previous rantings of Saudi court ‘ulama: the green dome over Rawdhah al-Mutahharah should be destroyed and the Prophet’s (pbuh) body relocated to an unmarked grave in Jannah al-Baqi‘! After protests from Muslims — and indeed some non-Muslims — the Saudi regime issued a terse statement saying no final decision has been made. They did not deny the plan.

The question that must be asked is: why are the Zionist occupiers of the Holy Land and Saudi occupiers of the Arabian Peninsula so determined to wipe out all traces of Islamic heritage and history? One can see what the Zionists are up to: they want to wipe out Islamic/Palestinian history and since al-Masjid al-Aqsa stands as a symbol of that identity, they are targeting it. Despite their demented thinking, the Zionists know their legitimacy is not complete without their taking control of al-Masjid al-Aqsa and building the “third temple” in its place. While the Zionists’ criminal enterprise must be vigorously resisted, what reason is there for the Saudis’ vandalism in the Haramayn? Unlike the Zionists, they call themselves Muslims yet they have no regard for Muslim sensitivity or sentiment. They seem to be gripped by extreme hatred of Islam, the noble Messenger (pbuh) — nastaghfir-allah — and Islamic history.     

The Zionists and the Saudis appear to share a common hatred of Islam. Will Muslims rise up to prevent this or allow their history, historical monuments and indeed their sacred sites to be desecrated in such a manner?


The idea to remove the body of the noble Messenger (pbuh) from its present grave has been brought up a number of times, the latest in August 2014 when an article appeared in the Royal Journal of the Haramayn. The brainchild of one ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Shabal, a professor at Muhammad ibn Saud University in Riyadh, the 61-page document is both brazen and scandalous. It has been circulated among the supervisors of al-Masjid al-Nabawi and makes the same sacrilegious suggestion as previous rantings of Saudi court ‘ulama: the green dome over Rawdhah al-Mutahharah should be destroyed and the Prophet’s (pbuh) body relocated to an unmarked grave in Jannah al-Baqi‘! After protests from Muslims — and indeed some non-Muslims — the Saudi regime issued a terse statement saying no final decision has been made. They did not deny the plan.

The question that must be asked is: why are the Zionist occupiers of the Holy Land and Saudi occupiers of the Arabian Peninsula so determined to wipe out all traces of Islamic heritage and history? One can see what the Zionists are up to: they want to wipe out Islamic/Palestinian history and since al-Masjid al-Aqsa stands as a symbol of that identity, they are targeting it. Despite their demented thinking, the Zionists know their legitimacy is not complete without their taking control of al-Masjid al-Aqsa and building the “third temple” in its place. While the Zionists’ criminal enterprise must be vigorously resisted, what reason is there for the Saudis’ vandalism in the Haramayn? Unlike the Zionists, they call themselves Muslims yet they have no regard for Muslim sensitivity or sentiment. They seem to be gripped by extreme hatred of Islam, the noble Messenger (pbuh) — nastaghfir-allah — and Islamic history.     

The Zionists and the Saudis appear to share a common hatred of Islam. Will Muslims rise up to prevent this or allow their history, historical monuments and indeed their sacred sites to be desecrated in such a manner?

Dr. Zafar Bangash

What ails the Muslim world?

Zafar Bangash

Muslim countries may have achieved nominal independence but they continue to suffer from the debilitating legacy of the colonial imposed order in their societies.

The Muslim world is not in good shape. Much has been written on the subject. What is needed is not more commentary but identification of the innate factors and probable causes behind this tragedy.

Civilizations are built on ideas that give birth to systems that in turn sustain a society’s growth and development. Unfortunately, some people confuse material progress — makings cars, planes, tanks or erecting tall buildings — with civilization.

Civilizations are built on ideas that give birth to systems that in turn sustain a society’s growth and development. Unfortunately, some people confuse material progress — makings cars, planes, tanks or erecting tall buildings — with civilization. Were tall structures the hallmark of a civilization, the Saudis and Emiratis would be leading the world. Muslims gave the world a civilization that lasted more than 1,000 years. The Islamic civilization was not based on material progress; it was based on ideas that resonated with human nature. Today, unfortunately Muslims are not in the driving seat of history.

The ruling elites are taking them in a direction the masses do not wish to go resulting in conflict in society. Unfortunately in most Muslim societies even the ‘ulama, that should be providing leadership, have been co-opted to do the bidding of the corrupt elite.

The basic reason is that the systems under which they operate are illegitimate. These were imposed by the colonial masters who also installed the ruling elites. The Muslim masses had no input in this process and thus no attachment to these systems. The ruling elites are taking them in a direction the masses do not wish to go resulting in conflict in society. Unfortunately in most Muslim societies even the ‘ulama, that should be providing leadership, have been co-opted to do the bidding of the corrupt elite. Personal interest trumps principles.

Before departing, the colonialists also burdened Muslim societies with numerous political and boundary problems. Palestine, Kashmir, Kurdistan, Sudan and a host of others continue to frustrate Muslim efforts to build their societies. The various institutions of state — military, bureaucracy, business and political elites — have proven unequal to the task. Instead, these institutions have developed their own interests and safeguard them at the expense of the greater good of society.

The question that must be asked is: what should Muslims do to get out of this rut? The Muslim world is not short of resources. What is lacking is their judicious use. Further, there is rampant corruption and gross inequality in almost every Muslim country. Whenever muttaqi leadership has emerged in any Muslim society — Islamic Iran, Lebanon (Hizbullah), Gaza (Hamas and Islamic Jihad), it has performed near miracles. The first point Muslims must therefore, realize is that they must work to overthrow the corrupt order in their societies. It will not be easy; the beneficiaries of the existing systems will fight hard to retain their privileges. No ruling class has ever given up power voluntarily. Their external masters will also work to frustrate the Muslims’ aspirations.

The Muslim masses must become part of the Islamic movement to bring about lasting change in society. The Islamic movement as an open system welcomes all into its fold.

The Muslim masses must become part of the Islamic movement to bring about lasting change in society. The Islamic movement as an open system welcomes all into its fold. This is also the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh); he led the first Islamic movement in history. He did not organize people on the basis of tribe, clan or class. Anyone who accepted Islam immediately became part of the Islamic movement.

Only muttaqi leadership operating above personal or class interests can lead the Islamic movement. Leadership in Islam is not sought; it is conferred on the most committed and dedicated people that emerge through many years of struggle and sacrifice. The goal must be to uphold the principles of Islam.

The leadership must then set a directional course and motivate people to pursue these goals. This is also according to the Sunnah of the noble Messenger (pbuh). It is these principles that will set Muslims on the path to secure freedom from taghut and begin a life of dignity and respect. Clarity of thought is a pre-requisite for achieving these lofty objectives. There are no shortcuts in this struggle.

Wahhabism to ISIS: how Saudi Arabia exported the main source of global terrorism

Although IS is certainly an Islamic movement, it is neither typical nor mired in the distant past, because its roots are in Wahhabism, a form of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia that developed only in the 18th century.

BY KAREN ARMSTRONG

 

As the so-called Islamic State demolishes nation states set up by the Europeans almost a century ago, IS’s obscene savagery seems to epitomise the violence that many believe to be inherent in religion in general and Islam in particular. It also suggests that the neoconservative ideology that inspired the Iraq war was delusory, since it assumed that the liberal nation state was an inevitable outcome of modernity and that, once Saddam’s dictatorship had gone, Iraq could not fail to become a western-style democracy. Instead, IS, which was born in the Iraq war and is intent on restoring the premodern autocracy of the caliphate, seems to be reverting to barbarism. On 16 November, the militants released a video showing that they had beheaded a fifth western hostage, the American aid worker Peter Kassig, as well as several captured Syrian soldiers. Some will see the group’s ferocious irredentism as proof of Islam’s chronic inability to embrace modern values.

Yet although IS is certainly an Islamic movement, it is neither typical nor mired in the distant past, because its roots are in Wahhabism, a form of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia that developed only in the 18th century. In July 2013, the European Parliament identified Wahhabism as the main source of global terrorism, and yet the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, condemning IS in the strongest terms, has insisted that “the ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism do not belong to Islam in any way”. Other members of the Saudi ruling class, however, look more kindly on the movement, applauding its staunch opposition to Shiaism and for its Salafi piety, its adherence to the original practices of Islam. This inconsistency is a salutary reminder of the impossibility of making accurate generalisations about any religious tradition. In its short history, Wahhabism has developed at least two distinct forms, each of which has a wholly different take on violence.

During the 18th century, revivalist movements sprang up in many parts of the Islamic world as the Muslim imperial powers began to lose control of peripheral territories. In the west at this time, we were beginning to separate church from state, but this secular ideal was a radical innovation: as revolutionary as the commercial economy that Europe was concurrently devising. No other culture regarded religion as a purely private activity, separate from such worldly pursuits as politics, so for Muslims the political fragmentation of their society was also a religious problem. Because the Quran had given them a sacred mission – to build a just economy in which everybody was treated with equity and respect – the political well-being of the umma (“community”) was always a matter of sacred import. If the poor were oppressed, the vulnerable exploited or state institutions corrupt, Muslims were obliged to make every effort to put society back on track.

So the 18th-century reformers were convinced that if Muslims were to regain lost power and prestige, they must return to the fundamentals of their faith, ensuring that God – rather than materialism or worldly ambition – dominated the political order. There was nothing militant about this “fundamentalism”; rather, it was a grass-roots attempt to reorient society and did not involve jihad. One of the most influential of these revivalists was Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-91), a learned scholar of Najd in central Arabia, whose teachings still inspire Muslim reformers and extremists today. He was especially concerned about the popular cult of saints and the idolatrous rituals at their tombs, which, he believed, attributed divinity to mere mortals. He insisted that every single man and woman should concentrate instead on the study of the Quran and the “traditions” (hadith) about the customary practice (Sunnah) of the Prophet and his companions. Like Luther, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab wanted to return to the earliest teachings of his faith and eject all later medieval accretions. He therefore opposed Sufism and Shiaism as heretical innovations (bidah), and he urged all Muslims to reject the learned exegesis developed over the centuries by the ulema (“scholars”) and interpret the texts for themselves.

This naturally incensed the clergy and threatened local rulers, who believed that interfering with these popular devotions would cause social unrest. Eventually, however, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab found a patron in Muhammad Ibn Saud, a chieftain of Najd who adopted his ideas. But tension soon developed between the two because Ibn Abd al-Wahhab refused to endorse Ibn Saud’s military campaigns for plunder and territory, insisting that jihad could not be waged for personal profit but was permissible only when the umma was attacked militarily. He also forbade the Arab custom of killing prisoners of war, the deliberate destruction of property and the slaughter of civilians, including women and children. Nor did he ever claim that those who fell in battle were martyrs who would be rewarded with a high place in heaven, because a desire for such self-aggrandisement was incompatible with jihad. Two forms of Wahhabism were emerging: where Ibn Saud was happy to enforce Wahhabi Islam with the sword to enhance his political position, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab insisted that education, study and debate were the only legitimate means of spreading the one true faith.

Yet although scripture was so central to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s ideology, by insisting that his version of Islam alone had validity, he had distorted the Quranic message. The Quran firmly stated that “There must be no coercion in matters of faith” (2:256), ruled that Muslims must believe in the revelations of all the great prophets (3:84) and that religious pluralism was God’s will (5:48). Muslims had, therefore, been traditionally wary of takfir, the practice of declaring a fellow Muslim to be an unbeliever (kafir). Hitherto Sufism, which had developed an outstanding appreciation of other faith traditions, had been the most popular form of Islam and had played an important role in both social and religious life. “Do not praise your own faith so exclusively that you disbelieve all the rest,” urged the great mystic Ibn al-Arabi (d.1240). “God the omniscient and omnipresent cannot be confined to any one creed.” It was common for a Sufi to claim that he was a neither a Jew nor a Christian, nor even a Muslim, because once you glimpsed the divine, you left these man-made distinctions behind.

Despite his rejection of other forms of Islam, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab himself refrained from takfir, arguing that God alone could read the heart, but after his death Wahhabis cast this inhibition aside and the generous pluralism of Sufism became increasingly suspect in the Muslim world.

After his death, too, Wahhabism became more violent, an instrument of state terror. As he sought to establish an independent kingdom, Abd al-Aziz Ibn Muhammad, Ibn Saud’s son and successor, used takfir to justify the wholesale slaughter of resistant populations. In 1801, his army sacked the holy Shia city of Karbala in what is now Iraq, plundered the tomb of Imam Husain, and slaughtered thousands of Shias, including women and children; in 1803, in fear and panic, the holy city of Mecca surrendered to the Saudi leader.

Eventually, in 1815, the Ottomans despatched Muhammad Ali Pasha, governor of Egypt, to crush the Wahhabi forces and destroy their capital. But Wahhabism became a political force once again during the First World War when the Saudi chieftain – another Abd al-Aziz – made a new push for statehood and began to carve out a large kingdom for himself in the Middle East with his devout Bedouin army, known as the Ikhwan, the “Brotherhood”.

In the Ikhwan we see the roots of IS. To break up the tribes and wean them from the nomadic life, which was deemed incompatible with Islam, the Wahhabi clergy had settled the Bedouin in oases, where they learned farming and the crafts of sedentary life and were indoctrinated in Wahhabi Islam. Once they exchanged the time-honoured ghazu raid, which typically resulted in the plunder of livestock, for the jihad, these Bedouin fighters became more violent and extreme, covering their faces when they encountered Europeans and non-Saudi Arabs and fighting with lances and swords because they disdained weaponry not used by the Prophet. In the old ghazu raids, the Bedouin had always kept casualties to a minimum and did not attack non-combatants. Now the Ikhwan routinely massacred “apostate” unarmed villagers in their thousands, thought nothing of slaughtering women and children, and routinely slit the throats of all male captives.

In 1915, Abd al-Aziz planned to conquer the Hijaz (an area in the west of present-day Saudi Arabia that includes the cities of Mecca and Medina), the Persian Gulf to the east of Najd, and the land that is now Syria and Jordan in the north, but during the 1920s he tempered his ambitions in order to acquire diplomatic standing as a nation state with Britain and the United States. The Ikhwan, however, continued to raid the British protectorates of Iraq, Transjordan and Kuwait, insisting that no limits could be placed on jihad. Regarding all modernisation as bidah, the Ikhwan also attacked Abd al-Aziz for permitting telephones, cars, the telegraph, music and smoking – indeed, anything unknown in Muhammad’s time – until finally Abd al-Aziz quashed their rebellion in 1930.

After the defeat of the Ikhwan, the official Wahhabism of the Saudi kingdom abandoned militant jihad and became a religiously conservative movement, similar to the original movement in the time of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, except that takfir was now an accepted practice and, indeed, essential to the Wahhabi faith. Henceforth there would always be tension between the ruling Saudi establishment and more radical Wahhabis. The Ikhwan spirit and its dream of territorial expansion did not die, but gained new ground in the 1970s, when the kingdom became central to western foreign policy in the region. Washington welcomed the Saudis’ opposition to Nasserism (the pan-Arab socialist ideology of Egypt’s second president, Gamal Abdel Nasser) and to Soviet influence. After the Iranian Revolution, it gave tacit support to the Saudis’ project of countering Shia radicalism by Wahhabising the entire Muslim world.

The soaring oil price created by the 1973 embargo – when Arab petroleum producers cut off supplies to the US to protest against the Americans’ military support for Israel – gave the kingdom all the petrodollars it needed to export its idiosyncratic form of Islam. The old military jihad to spread the faith was now replaced by a cultural offensive. The Saudi-based Muslim World League opened offices in every region inhabited by Muslims, and the Saudi ministry of religion printed and distributed Wahhabi translations of the Quran, Wahhabi doctrinal texts and the writings of modern thinkers whom the Saudis found congenial, such as Sayyids Abul-A’la Maududi and Qutb, to Muslim communities throughout the Middle East, Africa, Indonesia, the United States and Europe. In all these places, they funded the building of Saudi-style mosques with Wahhabi preachers and established madrasas that provided free education for the poor, with, of course, a Wahhabi curriculum. At the same time, young men from the poorer Muslim countries, such as Egypt and Pakistan, who had felt compelled to find work in the Gulf to support their families, associated their relative affluence with Wahhabism and brought this faith back home with them, living in new neighbourhoods with Saudi mosques and shopping malls that segregated the sexes. The Saudis demanded religious conformity in return for their munificence, so Wahhabi rejection of all other forms of Islam as well as other faiths would reach as deeply into Bradford, England, and Buffalo, New York, as into Pakistan, Jordan or Syria: everywhere gravely undermining Islam’s traditional pluralism.

A whole generation of Muslims, therefore, has grown up with a maverick form of Islam that has given them a negative view of other faiths and an intolerantly sectarian understanding of their own. While not extremist per se, this is an outlook in which radicalism can develop. In the past, the learned exegesis of the ulema, which Wahhabis rejected, had held extremist interpretations of scripture in check; but now unqualified freelancers such as Osama Bin Laden were free to develop highly unorthodox readings of the Quran. To prevent the spread of radicalism, the Saudis tried to deflect their young from the internal problems of the kingdom during the 1980s by encouraging a pan-Islamist sentiment of which the Wahhabi ulema did not approve.

Where Islamists in such countries as Egypt fought tyranny and corruption at home, Saudi Islamists focused on the humiliation and oppression of Muslims worldwide. Television brought images of Muslim suffering in Palestine or Lebanon into comfortable Saudi homes. The gov­ernment also encouraged young men to join the steady stream of recruits from the Arab world who were joining the Afghans’ jihad against the Soviet Union. The response of these militants may throw light on the motivation of those joining the jihad in Syria and Iraq today.

A survey of those Saudi men who volunteered for Afghanistan and who later fought in Bosnia and Chechnya or trained in al-Qaeda camps has found that most were motivated not by hatred of the west but by the desire to help their Muslim brothers and sisters – in rather the same way as men from all over Europe left home in 1938 to fight the Fascists in Spain, and as Jews from all over the diaspora hastened to Israel at the beginning of the Six Day War in 1967. The welfare of the umma had always been a spiritual as well as a political concern in Islam, so the desperate plight of their fellow Muslims cut to the core of their religious identity. This pan-Islamist emphasis was also central to Bin Laden’s propaganda, and the martyr-videos of the Saudis who took part in the 9/11 atrocity show that they were influenced less by Wahhabism than by the pain and humiliation of the umma as a whole.

Like the Ikhwan, IS represents a rebellion against the official Wahhabism of modern Saudi Arabia. Its swords, covered faces and cut-throat executions all recall the original Brotherhood. But it is unlikely that the IS hordes consist entirely of diehard jihadists. A substantial number are probably secularists who resent the status quo in Iraq: Ba’athists from Saddam Hussein’s regime and former soldiers of his disbanded army. This would explain IS’s strong performance against professional military forces. In all likelihood, few of the young recruits are motivated either by Wahhabism or by more traditional Muslim ideals. In 2008, MI5’s behavioural science unit noted that, “far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could . . . be regarded as religious novices.” A significant proportion of those convicted of terrorism offences since the 9/11 attacks have been non-observant, or are self-taught, or, like the gunman in the recent attack on the Canadian parliament, are converts to Islam. They may claim to be acting in the name of Islam, but when an untalented beginner tells us that he is playing a Beethoven sonata, we hear only cacophony. Two wannabe jihadists who set out from Birmingham for Syria last May had ordered Islam for Dummies from Amazon.

It would be a mistake to see IS as a throwback; it is, as the British philosopher John Gray has argued, a thoroughly modern movement that has become an efficient, self-financing business with assets estimated at $2bn. Its looting, theft of gold bullion from banks, kidnapping, siphoning of oil in the conquered territories and extortion have made it the wealthiest jihadist group in the world. There is nothing random or irrational about IS violence. The execution videos are carefully and strategically planned to inspire terror, deter dissent and sow chaos in the greater population.

Mass killing is a thoroughly modern phenomenon. During the French Revolution, which led to the emergence of the first secular state in Europe, the Jacobins publicly beheaded about 17,000 men, women and children. In the First World War, the Young Turks slaughtered over a million Armenians, including women, children and the elderly, to create a pure Turkic nation. The Soviet Bolsheviks, the Khmer Rouge and the Red Guard all used systematic terrorism to purge humanity of corruption. Similarly, IS uses violence to achieve a single, limited and clearly defined objective that would be impossible without such slaughter. As such, it is another expression of the dark side of modernity.

In 1922, as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk rose to power, he completed the Young Turks’ racial purge by forcibly deporting all Greek-speaking Christians from Turkey; in 1925 he declared null and void the caliphate that IS has vowed to reinstate. The caliphate had long been a dead letter politically, but because it symbolised the unity of the umma and its link with the Prophet, Sunni Muslims mourned its loss as a spiritual and cultural trauma. Yet IS’s projected caliphate has no support among ulema internationally and is derided throughout the Muslim world. That said, the limitations of the nation state are becoming increasingly apparent in our world; this is especially true in the Middle East, which has no tradition of nationalism, and where the frontiers drawn by invaders were so arbitrary that it was well nigh impossible to create a truly national spirit. Here, too, IS is not simply harking back to a bygone age but is, however eccentrically, enunciating a modern concern.

The liberal-democratic nation state developed in Europe in part to serve the Industrial Revolution, which made the ideals of the Enlightenment no longer noble aspirations but practical necessities. It is not ideal: its Achilles heel has always been an inability to tolerate ethnic minorities – a failing responsible for some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. In other parts of the world where modernisation has developed differently, other polities may be more appropriate. So the liberal state is not an inevitable consequence of modernity; the attempt to produce democracy in Iraq using the colo­nial methods of invasion, subjugation and occupation could only result in an unnatural birth – and so IS emerged from the resulting mayhem.

IS may have overreached itself; its policies may not be sustainable and it faces determined opposition from Sunni and Shia Muslims alike. Interestingly Saudi Arabia, with its impressive counterterrorist resources, has already thwarted IS attempts to launch a series of attacks in the kingdom and may be the only regional power capable of bringing it down. The shooting in Canada on 22 October, where a Muslim convert killed a soldier at a war memorial, indicates that the blowback in the west has begun; to deal realistically with our situation, we need an informed understanding of the precise and limited role of Islam in the conflict, and to recognise that IS is not an atavistic return to a primitive past, but in some real sense a product of modernity. 

Karen Armstrong is the author of “Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence” (Bodley Head, £25)

World’s Biggest Pilgrimage Now Underway, And Why You’ve Never Heard of it!

By Sayed Mahdi al-Modarresi Faith Leader, Lecturer, Author of “The Lost Testament”

It’s not the Muslim Hajj, or the Hindu Kumbh Mela.. Known as Arbaeen, it is the world’s most populous gathering and you’ve probably never heard of it! Not only does the congregation exceed the number of visitors to Mecca (by a factor of five, in fact), it is more significant than Kumbh Mela, since the latter is only held every third year. In short, Arbaeen dwarfs every other rally on the planet, reaching twenty million last year. That is a staggering %60 of Iraq’s entire population, and it is growing year after year.

 Above all, Arbaeen is unique because it takes place against the backdrop of chaotic and dangerous geopolitical scenes. Daesh (aka ‘Islamic State’) sees the Shia as their mortal enemy, so nothing infuriates the terror group more than the sight of Shia pilgrims gathering for their greatest show of faith. There’s another peculiar feature of Arbaeen. While it is a distinctively Shia spiritual exercise, Sunnis, even Christians, Yazidis, Zoroastrians, and Sabians partake in both the pilgrimage as well as serving of devotees. This is remarkable given the exclusive nature of religious rituals, and it could only mean one thing: people regardless of color or creed see Hussein as a universal, borderless, and meta-religious symbol of freedom and compassion.

 Why you have never heard of it probably has to do with the fact that the press is concerned more with negative, gory, and sensationalized tabloids, than with positive, inspiring narratives, particularly when it comes to Islam. If a few hundred anti-immigration protestors take to the streets in London and they will make headlines.. The same level of airtime is awarded to a pro-democracy march in Hong Kong or an anti-Putin rally in Russia.. But a gathering of twenty million in obstreperous defiance of terror and injustice somehow fails even to make it into the TV news ticker! An unofficial media embargo is imposed on the gargantuan event despite the story having all the critical elements of an eye-catching feature; the staggering numbers, the political significance, the revolutionary message, the tense backdrop, as well as originality..

But when such a story does make it through the editorial axe of major news outlets, it creates shockwaves and touches the most random people. Among the countless individuals inspired by it, is a young Australian man I met several years ago who had converted to Islam. Evidently, no one takes such a life-altering decision lightly, so upon inquiry he told me it all started in 2003. One evening, as he was watching the news only to be drawn by scenes of millions streaming towards a holy city known as Karbala, chanting the name of a man he had never heard of: “Hussein”. For the first time in decades, in a globally televised event, the world had caught an glimpse into previously suppressed religious fervor in Iraq. With the Sunni Ba’athist regime toppled, Western viewers were eager to see how Iraqis would respond to a new era free from dictatorship persecution.

The ‘Republic of Fear’ had crumbled and the genie had irreversibly escaped from the bottle. “Where is Karbala, and why is everyone heading in its direction?” he recalls asking himself. “Who is this Hussein who motivates people to defy all the odds and come out to mourn his death fourteen centuries after the fact?” What he witnessed in that 60-second report was especially moving because the imagery was unlike any he had ever seen. A fervent sense of connection turned human pilgrims into iron filings, swarming together other as they drew closer to what could only be described as Hussein’s irresistible magnetic field. “If you want to see a living, breathing, lively religion, come to Karbala” he said. How could a man who was killed 1396 years ago be so alive and have such a palpable presence today that he makes millions take up his cause, and view his plight as their own? People are unlikely to be drawn into a dispute (much less one that transpired in ancient times) unless they have a personal interest in the matter. On the other hand, if you felt someone was engaged in a fight over your right to freedom, your prerogative to be treated justly, and your entitlement to a life of dignity, you would feel you had a vested interest and would empathize with him to the point where conversion to his beliefs is not a far-fetched possibility.

The Ultimate Tragedy Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, is revered by Muslims as the “Prince of Martyrs”. He was killed in Karbala on a day which became known as Ashura, the tenth day of the Islamic month of Muharram, having refused to pledge allegiance to the corrupt and tyrannical caliph, Yazid. He and his family and companions were surrounded in the desert by an army of 30,000, starved of food and water, then beheaded in the most macabre manner, a graphic tale recounted from pulpits every year since the day he was slain. Their bodies were mutilated. In the words of the English historian Edward Gibbon: “In a distant age and climate, the tragic scene of the death of Hussein will awaken the sympathy of the coldest reader.”

 Shia Muslims have since mourned the death of Hussein, in particular on the days of Ashura, then, forty days later, on Arbaeen. Forty days is the usual length of mourning in many Muslim traditions. This year, Arba’een falls on Friday 12 December. Long Trek I travelled to Karbala, my own ancestral home, to find out for myself why the city is so intoxicating. What I witnessed proved to me that even the widest-angle camera lens is too narrow to capture the spirit of this tumultuous, yet peaceful gathering. An avalanche of men, women and children, but most visibly black-veiled women, fill the eye from one end of the horizon to the other.The crowds were so huge that they caused a blockade for hundreds of miles. The 425 mile distance between the southern port city of Basra and Karbala is a long journey by car, but it’s unimaginably arduous on foot.

It takes pilgrims a full two weeks to complete the walk. People of all age groups trudge in the scorching sun during the day and in bone-chilling cold at night. They travel across rough terrain, down uneven roads, through terrorist strongholds, and dangerous marshlands. Without even the most basic amenities or travel gear, the pilgrims carry little besides their burning love for “The Master” Hussein. Flags and banners remind them, and the world, of the purpose of their journey: O self, you are worthless after Hussein. My life and death are one and the same, So be it if they call me insane! The message recalls an epic recited by Abbas, Hussein’s half-brother and trusted lieutenant, who was also killed in the Battle of Karbala in 680AD while trying to fetch water for his parched nieces and nephews. With security being in the detrimental state that makes Iraq the number one headline in the world, no one doubts that this statement is genuine in every sense. Free lunch.. And dinner, and breakfast!

 One part of the pilgrimage which will leave every visitor perplexed is the sight of thousands of tents with makeshift kitchens set up by local villagers who live around the pilgrims’ path. The tents (called ‘mawkeb’) are places where pilgrims get practically everything they need. From fresh meals to eat and a space to rest, to free international phone calls to assure concerned relatives, to baby diapers, to practically every other amenity, free of charge. In fact, pilgrims do not need to carry anything on the 400 mile journey except the clothes they wear. More intriguing is how pilgrims are invited for food and drink. Mawkeb organizers intercept the pilgrims’ path to plead with them to accept their offerings, which often includes a full suite of services fit for kings: first you can a foot massage, then you are offered a delicious hot meal, then you are invited to rest while your clothes are washed, ironed, then returned to you after a nap. All complimentary, of course.

 For some perspective, consider this: In the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake, and with worldwide sympathy and support, the UN World Food Programme announced delivery of half a million meals at the height of its relief efforts.. The United States military, launched Operation Unified Response, bringing together the massive resources of various federal agencies and announced that within five months of the humanitarian catastrophe, 4.9 million meals had been delivered to Haitians. Now compare that with over 50 million meals per day during Arbaeen, equating to about 700 million meals for the duration of the pilgrimage, all financed not by the United Nations or international charities, but by poor laborers and farmers who starve to feed the pilgrims and save up all year round so that visitors are satisfied.

Everything, including security is provided mostly by volunteer fighters who have one eye on Daesh, and another on protecting the pilgrim’s path. “To know what Islam teaches,” says one Mawkeb organizer, “don’t look at the actions of a few hundred barbaric terrorists, but the selfless sacrifices exhibited by millions of Arbaeen pilgrims.” In fact, Arbaeen should be listed in the Guinness Book of World Records in several categories: biggest annual gathering, longest continuous dining table, largest number of people fed for free, largest group of volunteers serving a single event, all under the imminent threat of suicide bombings.

  Unmatched Devotion Just looking at the multitudes leaves you breathless. What adds to the spectacle is that, as the security conditions worsen, even more people are motivated to challenge the terrorist threats and march in defiance. Thus, the pilgrimage isn’t a mere religious exercise, but a bold statement of resistance. Videos have been posted online showing how a suicide bomber blows himself up in the midst of the pilgrims, only to have the crowds turn out in even greater numbers, chanting in unison: If they sever our legs and hands, We shall crawl to the Holy Lands! The horrific bomb blasts which occur year-round, mostly targeting Shia pilgrims and taking countless lives, illustrate the dangers facing Shias living in Iraq, and the insecurity that continues to plague the country.

Yet the imminent threat of death doesn’t seem to deter people - young and old, Iraqis and foreigners - from making the dangerous journey to the holy city. It isn’t easy for an outsider to understand what inspires the pilgrims. You see women carrying children in their arms, old men in wheelchairs, people on crutches, and blind seniors holding walking sticks. I met a father who had travelled all the way from Basra with his disabled boy. The 12-year-old had cerebral palsy and could not walk unassisted. So for a part of the trek the father put the boy’s feet on top of his and held him by the armpits as they walked. It is the kind of story out of which Oscar-winning films are made, but it seems Hollywood is more concerned with comic heroes and with real life heroes whose superpower is their courage and commitment.

Golden Dome of Hussein

Visitors to the shrine of Hussein and his brother Abbas are not driven by emotion alone. They cry be reminded of the atrocious nature of his death, in doing so, they reaffirm their pledge to his ideals. The first thing that pilgrims do upon reaching his shrine is recite the Ziyara, a sacred text which summarizes the status of Hussein. In it, they begin the address by calling Hussein the “inheritor” of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. There is something profound in making this proclamation. It shows that Hussein’s message of truth, justice, and love for the oppressed is viewed as an inseparable extension of all divinely-appointed prophets. People go to Karbala not to marvel at the city’s landscape - lush with date palms, or to admire the mausoleum’s physical beauty, or to shop, be entertained, or to visit ancient historical sites. They go to cry.

To mourn and experience the angelic aura of Hussein. They enter the sacred shrine weeping and lamenting the greatest act of sacrifice ever seen. It is as though every person has established a personal relationship with the man they have never seen. They talk to him and call out his name; they grip the housing of his tomb; they kiss the floor leading into the shrine; they touch its walls and doors in the same manner one touches the face of a long-lost friend. It is a picturesque vista of epic proportions. What motivates these people is something that requires an understanding of the character and status of Imam Hussein and the spiritual relationship that those who have come to know him have developed with his living legend.

If the world understood Hussein, his message, and his sacrifice, they would begin to understand the ancient roots of Daesh and its credo of death and destruction. It was centuries ago in Karbala that humanity witnessed the genesis of senseless monstrosities, epitomized in the murderers of Hussein. It was pitch black darkness v. Absolute shining light, an exhibition of vice v. a festival of virtue, hence the potent specter of Hussein today. His presence is primordially woven into every facet of their lives. His legend encourages, inspires, and champions change for the better, and no amount of media blackout can extinguish its light. “Who is this Hussein”? For hundreds of millions of his followers, a question this profound, which can cause people to relinquish their religion for another, can be answered only when you have marched to the shrine of Hussein on foot.