Is Wahhabism and Salafism Motivating ISIS?

I often get questions about Islam over e-mail and Facebook, but usually I just answer the questions and perhaps a few emails go back and forth and that is the end of the conversation. I made the decision that perhaps it would be better to start responding to questions on this blog instead, so that others who have similar questions might benefit. So today someone asked my thoughts on this video:

Now if you did not take the time to watch the video I will summarize it. Basically someone asks if the movements of Salafism and Wahhabism are motivating ISIS. The speaker explains that he believes that Salafism and Wabbism are not to blame. He says that the current groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS trace their roots back to the extremist groups of the 70s, in particular he traces them back to groups started by Sayyid Qutb. In the end he says that he does not views ISIS as being directly caused by the theology of Wahhbism.

On one level I understand what he is saying. Your average person who identifies as a Wahhabi or Salafist does not necessarily support actions by groups such as Al Qaeda or ISIS. However, I would not go so far as to assert that Wahhabis are wholly free from all blame of the rise of extremist movements.

Now before I begin my feeble attempt to address this issue, I should note that there is a book written by my first Islam Professor, Khaled Abou El Fadl called The Grand Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Hands of Extremists. If you are interested in this topic, pick up a copy of the book. It is only $4 for the Kindle version.

So what role does Wahhabi thought and theology play in the role of creating groups like ISIS? Well let's use an American example:

Bill O'reilly kept referring to Dr. George Tiller, a Dr. who ran an abortion clinic as "Tiller the baby killer." He mentioned Tiller on almost 30 shows.  Eventually Tiller was shot and killed by an anti-abortion zealot. Now, O'Reilly will deny inspiring the man to commit murder, and on one level he is correct, saying you don't like someone and their actions is not necessarily an invitation to kill them. But on another level you have to ask yourself, if you repeatedly use your platform saying things like: "Something needs to be done about Tiller the baby killer!" is it then a surprise when someone takes it too far?

So how does ISIS follow the example of the Wahhabis? Well, let's look at one example, the destruction of historical sites. Here is a list of all the historical sites destroyed by the Wahhabis. They believe that anything other than the the Ka'ba itself should not be worshiped, and therefore destroy anything they come into, even places related to Muhammad. Now look at all the historical sites ISIS destroyed in Iraq. It should be noted all these historical sites had survived for over 1400 years under various Islamic rulers, but it wasn't until the Wahhabis came to power in Saudi Arabia, and subsequently ISIS in Iraq and Syria, did we see the destruction of these important pieces of history. Meaning plenty of Muslims over 1000 years had seen these same historical sites, and they did not destroy them, so why all of a sudden do we now hear rhetoric that these sites need to be destroyed? What has changed? Well Wahhabism as the dominant version of Islam in Saudi Arabia is what has changed, and that ideology is trickling into the rest of the Muslim world.

When the Wahhabis came to power in the 18th century, their brand of brutal sharia interpretation was not common. In fact, when Abdal Wahhab stoned a woman for adultery the Muslim word was shocked. (For more information on this, check out pg. 62 of "The Great Theft: " by Khaled About El Fadl) From the beginning the Wahhabi movement was a movement that contained rather extreme rhetoric and it is not surprising at all that ISIS has taken some of the Wahhabi ideals to the extreme.

Excerpt from the book Some Answered Questions:

Now as to Muḥammad, the people of Europe and America have heard certain tales about the Prophet, to which they have given credence even though the providers of these accounts, many of whom belonged to the ranks of the Christian clergy, were either ignorant or ill-intentioned. Likewise, a number of ignorant Muslims relayed unfounded tales concerning Muḥammad, which in their minds redounded to His glory. Thus some benighted Muslims made His polygamy the object of their highest praise and held it to be a sign of His wondrous powers, since these ignorant souls considered the multiplicity of wives to be a miraculous thing. The accounts of European historians rely for the most part upon the sayings of such ignorant people.

For example, a foolish individual once told a Christian priest that the proof of true greatness lies in surpassing bravery and bloodshed, and that in a single day one of the followers of Muḥammad had beheaded a hundred men on the battlefield! This led the priest to surmise that the proof of Muḥammad’s religion consisted in killing, which is nothing but vain imagination. On the contrary, Muḥammad’s military expeditions were always defensive in nature. The clear proof is this: For thirteen years both He and His companions endured in Mecca the most intense persecutions and were the constant target of the darts of hatred. Some of His companions were killed and their possessions pillaged; others forsook their native country and fled to foreign lands. Muḥammad Himself was subjected to the severest persecutions and was obliged, when His enemies resolved to kill Him, to flee Mecca in the middle of the night and emigrate to Medina. Yet even then His enemies did not relent, but pursued the Muslims all the way to Medina and to Abyssinia.

These Arab tribes were most barbarous and rapacious, and in comparison with them the wild and fierce natives of America were the Platos of the age, for they did not bury their children alive as these Arabs did their daughters, claiming this to be an act of honour and taking pride therein. Thus many of the men would threaten their wives, saying, “If a daughter is born to you, I will kill you.” Even to the present day the Arabs dread having daughters.

Moreover, one man could take a thousand wives, and most husbands had more than ten wives in their household. When these tribes waged war against each other, the victors would take captive the women and children of the vanquished, regard them as slaves, and engage in buying and selling them.

If a man died and left behind ten wives, the sons of these women would rush at each other’s mothers, and as soon as one of them had thrown his mantle over the head of one of his stepmothers and claimed her as his lawful property, that unfortunate woman would become the captive and slave of her stepson and the latter could do with her as he pleased. He could kill her; or shut her up in a pit; or beat, curse, and torment her day after day until at last she perished. In all this he was, in accordance with the laws and customs of the Arabs, free to do as he pleased. The rancour and jealousy, the hatred and enmity that must have existed between the wives of a man and their respective children are perfectly clear and require no elaboration. Consider then what the life and condition of those wronged women must have been!

Moreover, these Arab tribes subsisted upon mutual pillage and robbery, so that they were perpetually engaged in strife and warfare, killing one another, plundering each other’s property, and seizing the women and children and selling them to strangers. How often would the sons and daughters of a prince spend the day in luxury and ease and find themselves at nightfall reduced to utter abasement, wretchedness, and bondage. Yesterday they were princes, today they are captives; yesterday they were honoured ladies, today they are slaves.

It was among such tribes that Muḥammad was sent forth.

Muḥammad never fought against the Christians; on the contrary, He treated them with consideration and accorded them complete freedom. In Najrán there lived a community of Christians, and they were under His care and protection. Muḥammad said: “Should anyone infringe upon their rights, I myself will be his enemy and will charge him before God.” In the edicts He promulgated, it is clearly stated that the lives, property, and honour of Jews and Christians are under the protection of God; that a Muslim husband may not prevent his Christian wife from going to church, nor oblige her to wear a veil; that if she died he must entrust her remains to the care of a priest; and that if the Christians desired to build a church the Muslims must support them. Furthermore, in time of war between Islam and her enemies, the Christians were to be exempt from fighting, unless they desired of their own accord to join and assist the Muslims in battle, in view of the protection they enjoyed. In compensation for this exemption, they were to pay each year a small amount.

-Abdu’l Baha, Some Answered Questions

Excerpts from the Constitution of Medina-

1.    This is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation -- Ummah.

2. In case of war with anybody they will redeem their prisoners with kindness and justice common among Believers. (Not according to pre-Islamic nations where the rich and the poor were treated differently).

3. Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality. (Social, legal and economic equality is promised to all loyal citizens of the State).

4. No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.

5. When you differ on anything (regarding this Document) the matter shall be referred to Allah and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

6. The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers. The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen. The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully. By so doing they wrong themselves and their families.
7. If anyone attacks anyone who is a party to this Pact the other must come to his help.