The Great Commission of Mussulman

Over the years, I have been struck by the contradiction between what I read in Salafi materials and what I hear from the lips of Salafist practioners. Two very different forms of Salafism emerges from either channel. For example, Salafist websites are famous for their "hit lists" of groups and individuals whom they consider deviants. Depending on how far down the Salafist ladder a particular website is, these lists typically include Shaykhs Hamzah Yusuf, Nuh Ha Mim Keller and Hakim Murad. The triad is always good for a game of "us-versus-them"; or to be more specific, true Islam versus charlatan Islam. It's all very tribal, you see.

Most Salafists, however, don't carry these lists in their heads. People are essentially good, trusting creatures, and they don't go around labeling other Muslims as either "deviants" or "innovators". The last is especially ironic since Salafists are one of the only type of Muslims who think all innovations, including the ubiquitous prayer beads, are evil.

Now, Salafism is of course larger than all these petty concerns. It is an industry more inclined toward prostelyzing amongst Muslims. In fact, it would not be too far-fetched to say that Salafism's main concern has always been fellow Muslims. Since one of Salafism's favorite names for itself is the Saved Sect, it's quite reasonable to conclude that those outside Salafism aren't too saved, and that Salafism, or what the Saudi Shaykh Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaani calls the Salafi Madhhab, is the only true path to salvation.

But the ordinary Salafist will tell you that the other Madhhabs like Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi'ie and Hanbali are legit too. They will say that while these four classical Madhhabs (juristic schools of thought) are sources of fiqh (the science of Islamic jurisprudence), the Salafi Madhhab is an exclusive source of aqida (Islamic doctrine or belief). They view theologians like Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, for example, as having promulgated a flawed understanding of God.

Considering that the great bulk of Muslim institutions and education centers in Southeast Asia still hold Ashari'ism to be a valid theology, it's easy to see how a writer like Mr Abdul-Rahman Bin Hamad Al-Omer came up with this equation:

"Muslims are many in number but few in reality, and the groups that claim to be Muslim are many, approaching 73 sects and numbering more than 1 billion."

One billion Muslims out of 1.3 billion isn't such a bad statistic. It still leaves three hundred million rapturous Muslims in the clear.

Yet, it's merely a statement of purpose. The Christians have their Great Commission, and Muslims- a small subset of them, certainly- possess the above testimony. Like most testimonies though, it's open to interpretation. In Salafism's case, the problem of mis-interpretation is particularly acute. The proof is in the amazingly consistent way such a creed shapes the outlook of modern extremist groups, which is hardly surprising since Salafism is itself a relatively modern enterprise. More importantly, it shares with Zionism the distinction of being an ideology that only became popular due to European ascendancy in the eighteenth and nineteenth century.

I am not saying that extremist groups are the true ambassadors of Salafism, but there is no doubt that Salafism's core tenets prove extremely inviting to extremists. The recently-killed Musab al-Zarqawi called himself a Salafist. Bloodthirsty Algerian separatists call themselves Salafists. Jemaah Islammiyyah, operating in Indonesia, claims to be Salafist. It is therefore inaccurate to say that violence is the result of an extreme interpretation of Islam when it really is the inevitable result of extreme ideology. An ordinary Muslim practicing Islam puritanically might be said to resemble an Amish, holding conservative views on a wide range of social issues and living out a closeted lifestyle. Hence, more women donning the niqab (face veil) should never be taken as evidence of radicalism. It reflects a more fundamental alignment with the religion's goals, certainly, but not with militant ideologies. Extreme Salafism, on the other hand, is revolutionary from the outset, inclined toward action to set things aright. Armed with the "Muslims are many in number but few in reality" manifesto, these groups, though beginning their career as "freedom-fighters" invariably plunge into the grisly business of fratricide.

Geographically and ethnically diverse, it is striking how these groups differ very little from each other, especially in their tactics and even the ulema (scholars) they quote from to justify their actions. They express absolutely no remorse at killing fellow Muslims, for example. In most cases, the targeting of Muslims seem almost deliberate. The same pattern is replicated everywhere these groups and their militant  ideology penetrate. From the "Wahhabi" inspired rebellion in Sumatra that left many traditional Muslims dead, to the Algerian secession that has seen the worst kinds of slaughter. All of them degenerated into civil wars involving the massacre of thousands of Muslims at the hands of militants.

All the while, the mainstream media has proven itself totally inapt at reporting the phenomenon, in its lazy dismissal that such wars are rooted in ethnicity. The laziness is apparent in Darfur, for example. The mainstream media finds it almost impossible to rise above its habit of partitioning the world in boundaries it is familiar with, little acknowledging the fact that racial wars are a rarity in the Islamic world. Perhaps it serves their agenda of lumping Muslims as a single people, with hardly a dissenting voice on the violence wrought by militants. What I really think, though, is that these reporters lack the necessary knowledge in both Islam and history to "read between the lines".

In the end, all they have to do really is to study the manner in which the victims of such civil wars practice their Islam. Are they part of the one billion who practice wrong Islam, or part of the three hundred million who adhere to correct Islam?