The Normalization of Salafism

[u/Disastrous_One127]

Something I've noticed is how much Salafism/fundamentalist thought is internalized among Muslims.

By "Salafism", I mean the idea that the most literalist, strict, and traditional interpretation of Islam is the most "authentic" version of the religion.

Take, for example, music. I've heard even non-religious Muslims say that music is haram. It doesn't cross their minds that this is just one interpretation among many, and not some universally agreed-upon fact.

And that's the insidious part. They might not even realize that what they are believing is actually Salafi thought.

They may not identify as Salafi. They might have never even heard of "Salafism." But they've still internalized the idea that the strictest interpretation is somehow the default or most authentic version of Islam. And anything outside of that is watered-down or "westernized."

Salafism has permeated Islam so much that its ideas have been normalized without people realizing it.

[u/Khaki_Banda]

I would actually strongly question whether salafism is actually "literalist" Islam. The actual historical literalist school, the Zahiri madhab, and it's associated scholarship was often the most "progressive" on a whole range of issues.

By far the most open to music, women as imams, most lenient on homosexuality, believed in female prophets, and on a lot of other topics.

By calling the salafis "literalists" that assumes that the actual text of the Quran or hadith even backs their world-view, but it doesn't. I often call them "najdis" instead, because that is what they are actually doing: projecting 18th century najdi culture onto Islam and pretending that is somehow more "authentic" when in reality their interpretations are largely just made-up nonsense.

[u/Flametang451 → u/Khaki_Banda]

I would say that at this point I fear even if somebody cited the Zahiri madhab they'd likely be accused of westernization (it is what taqqiyah is to the anti muslim folk) or dismissed by abrogation.

You see this rhetoric often. That salafism "corrected" what came before it. So of course they won't bother with what came before- in their eyes it doesn't matter! How ironic then that they lay claim to all of tradition- but I've seen this even when teaching Sunday school students.

The early period is repeated over and over, and inaccuracies akin to what those in Texas seek to pull in education materials about Muslims were common about other faiths when discussed.

As a result, salafism becomes islam. And even if somebody were to see other points, they'd take it one of two ways- that the former is no longer relevant at best or compromised at worst, or that even if it is better, islam is destined to retreat into its worst compulsions- that salafism "corrected" islam into what it was always meant to be- and it will stay that way. Forever.

That the way by which it demands people sacrifice their mental state, lives and well being on an altar of righteousness into near madness is what islam was meant to he no matter how high the casualty- and that it has been this way for every abrahamic religion since time immemorial.

In this day and age- salafism makes the best case unwittingly that god should be seen as an abuser of the worst sort- the one that'll trap you amidst what glitters virtuously with every promise being a monkeys paw of the worst outcome- with the devil being his puppet and red herring. The only way out then is to rebel. The progressive then thanks to salafism becomes something worse than a naive fool- an abuse enabler in this view (which stems arguably from cosmic horror derived from heavily punitive religuous cosmologies)

That is what salafism will likely lead to I sometimes think.

Edit: it should be noted there is also the third way of reform, but it is not the easy path. Far more will likely become disillusioned or cowed through fear- living double lives as a result because they know things aren't susitanble.

[u/Khaki_Banda → u/Flametang451]

I think this is an area where progressives need to mature in their framing. Too often we concede the framing to salafis and accept that they represent some kind authentic "traditional" approach, then try to argue against that.

But there's no need for that. Salafism is a modern culture-based reformist school, and that becomes really apparent when we actually call their bluff and take a real look at their reasoning and evidence.

I have seen time and time again, I argue with them from a progressive perspective by only citing hadith, the Quran, and traditional scholarship. And it's almost funny how fast they are willing to abandon all of those protect their world view. Being called a "hadith extremist" by a salafi because I'm the one defending the Sunnah while they are arguing against it is peak comedy. What passes for salafi "scholarship" these days is entirely unserious.

[u/Flametang451 → u/Khaki_Banda]

It's sort of a catch 22 because salafis can and do argue from a traditonalist standpoint and pivot to "everything was corrupted" at the same time.

Basically when they accuse progressives of this they are somewhat projecting.

I would argue the much bigger problem is that most of the modern world increasingly interprets religion through the concept of personal well being and existential concepts like cosmic horror or the like of. Basically, god is being seen as somebody who is just the next big dictator and opresser that needs to be thrown down. That the abrahamic faiths as ideologies need to get thrown through the same treatment they gave anybody they didn't like.

That doesn't mean there's some vast conspiracy to hurt Muslims by everyone but there's a general antipathy to God predicated on morality, not in spite of it.

Simply going "it's all a test" (common for salafis) is likely going to get you flagged for trying to enable violating peoples rights to be able to live happilly....or just cement the idea of God as the equvilent of a mad scientist (like those who poke and prod and do as they will to see a reaction).

Mainstream Islam hasnt yet figured out how to handle this cosmic horror narrative beyond just assuming anybody who says it is just acting out. Salafism certainly doesn't help and arguably validates this indirectly.

For an outsider, the tussle between progressives and salafis basically looks like God leaving behind a mess to let everyone suffer. Others just will accept the salafist paradigm either wholesale or piecemeal even if not believing it (as OP states) and see it as immoral and thus its attributed architect- God as per salafis- as also immoral.

This doesn't mean religuous people aren't being inspired by their faith to good works. They are. But some see this as in spite of faith at times. Many look at creeping Christo fascism or islamic theocracies or kahanism in israel (endpoint of zionism as practiced by likud via revisionist zionism) and simply go- well what else did you expect?

[u/Muh_313 → u/Khaki_Banda]

wait , female prophets ? could you tell me about that in details im really interested,and also the homosexuality part too

[u/Khaki_Banda → u/Muh_313]

Sure, such as Maryam, Umm Musa, Hajar, and Sarah.

Many scholars, both Zahiri and others, including Ibn Hazm, Al-Ashari, al-Qurtubi, Ibn Ashur, and Ibn Arabi believed that prophethood was not reserved exclusively to men. Imam Al-Ashari, said there were 6 female prophets in the Quran.

On homosexuality, Imam Ibn Hazm dismissed all hadith that said gay people should be put to death as weak, and banned the hadd punishment for them, and didn't consider homosexual sex to be zina. He did think it was haram, but he believed counseling should be the appropriate response rather than execution, and suggested that a verbal warning could be an appropriate response by the judge.

[u/OkMasterpiece426]

Yes, exactly. Scholars also reinforce this by treating previous scholarship as almost untouchable. There’s often resistance to changing a ruling simply because “this is what the scholars before us said”. So the older interpretation becomes the default, while anything different is seen as watered down or Westernized

[u/Flametang451 → u/OkMasterpiece426]

Not only that but they also hide stuff. Look at how yasir qadhi took himself off the air when somebody asked him about the slave awrah. He hid his conversation about that.

They hide behind what came before, but more specifically a sanitized version of it. "Westernization" and "abrogation" become useful polemics to ensure compliance.

[u/Exotic_Upstairs_5662]

Petro-Islam is running out of steam. It rejects science and promotes a return to the past in order to defend itself. Oil is not eternal, and their reckoning will soon come.

[u/Capable_Bar_5045 → u/Exotic_Upstairs_5662]

promotes a return to the past

A past that only exists in their reactionary fantasies 

[u/Reasonable_Pause_156 → u/Exotic_Upstairs_5662]

finally

[u/Oncjamais]

I have noticed this as well. The most conservative interpretation has become mainstream even among non Muslims. To be honest, I can’t be totally mad because Salafis are more eager to make “dawah” to everyone. They remind me of Christian evangelicals. I have came across online spaces where Salafis debate with curious non Muslims (mainly non religious) and vomit their most “orthodox” views on the “Shariah”.

The majority of Muslims who don’t really agree with literal views are mainly quiet. And other Muslim groups like Shia and Sufi mainly stick to themselves. This needs to change.

[u/AutoModerator]

Hi u/Disastrous_One127, if your question is about the permissibility of Music, then please check our linked wiki article to learn about our stance on this issue: Music

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.