Posted on 01/03/2007 3:44:13 PM PST by SJackson
And an Amazon reviewer has this to say:
Unveiling a Work of Pseudo-scholarship, November 4, 2004
Reviewer: Zubair Qamar - See all my reviews
Natana J. Delong-Bas's book, "Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad," which purportedly explains Wahhabism "accurately" and dispels "myths" propagated by "polemics" of all colors, media pundits and all, is a rather welcome contribution - or so it seems, at first glance. The three-page Introduction portrayed several people - including Stephen Schwartz (footnote 1,7,9,11), Khaled Abou El Fadl (footnote 3), and myself (footnote 6) -- as examples of misinformed individuals, in the least, who portrayed Wahhabism inaccurately in their works. To the author, their anti-Wahhabi rhetoric, like many others, flew in the face of the facts that she allegedly gathered in her more than 300 pages of research, much of it translated into English for the first time. Delong-Bas's point: Wahhabism just isn't the scary monster it is said to be. Maybe it really was a "pathbreaking" (Oxford Press), "groundbreaking" (John L. Esposito), endeavor, I thought.
Could the portrayal of Wahhabism as intolerant and fanatical by hundreds, maybe thousands, of Muslim and non-Muslim scholars, authors, activists, students, etc. in 200+ years past be flawed? Should their positions be construed merely as a load of sophisticated/polemical gobbledygook? Does the author really open "the way for historians to reconsider and revise the standard, perhaps mistaken, notions about it" (David Commins)? One need not go to far into the book to answer such questions. Because of the author's main sources, the book fails miserably as a work of diligent scholarship.
In the Preface,Delong-Bas says: "Thanks are due to Faisal bin Salman, Abd Allah S. al-Uthaymin, and Dr. Fahd al-Semmari, Director of the King Abd al-Aziz Foundation for Research and Archives, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for making the full corpus of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab's works available to me [...]." This same research foundation was also one of three sources that provided "financial support" for her book. What follows is a brief description of who the author is thanking.
The Foundation is named after King Abd al-Aziz (1902-1953), the Wahhabi founder of Saudi Arabia who slaughtered non-Wahhabi Muslims (and even Wahhabi Muslims of the Ikhwan) in his path to "victory".
Abd Allah S. al-Uthaymin, a Wahhabi, is the author of "History of Saudi Arabia: From the Movement Reformer Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab to King Abd al-Aziz."
Faisal bin Salman, known as "H.R.H. (His Royal Highness)" in Saudi Arabia, is one of the princes of the Wahhabi Al-Sa'ud monarchy. Somehow, Delong-Bas (Oxford Press?) did not add the "H.R.H." acronym before the prince's name in the Preface -obviously a part of the book read by many. However, she remembered to add the acronym in a tiny-lettered footnote #8 (Introduction) hidden well in the back of the book that few readers would perhaps bother to read. Why did Delong-Bas/Oxford Press do this? Were they trying to hide something?
Dr. Fahd al-Semmari, a Wahhabi, was deputy secretary of the kingdom's 100th Anniversary Committee, in addition to his current role as general director of the King Abd al-Aziz Foundation for Research and Archives. The foundation's mandate is to glorify the heritage of Saudi Arabia, including Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab who is a part of the heritage.
On page 14, Delong-Bas states the four main sources of biographical information of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab:
(1) contemporary chronicles written by his supporters, the most important of whom were Husayn Ibn Ghannam and Uthman Ibn Bishr; (2) polemical works written by his opponents, the most important of whom was Ahmad bin Zayni Dahlan; (3) accounts written by Western travelers to Arabia; and (4) Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's own written works.
She then says, "Of all of these accounts, the chronicles contain the most biographical information and are considered to be the most accurate in terms of biographical information because of the proximity of the writers to their subjects."
Does close proximity to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab/"subjects" necessarily mean the sources will be the "most accurate in terms of biographical information"? Common sense says no because Ibn Ghannam and Ibn Bishr are clearly stated to be Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's "supporters". It's like contacting a pro-Nazi foundation for a biography of Adolph Hitler, and portraying sources by Hitler's admirers as the "most accurate" because they were among the closest in "proximity" to him. Is there not a high possibility that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's "supporters" mainly focused on his peaceful biographical aspects, and concealed his more extremist/jihadist aspects? Is it not possible that they, like any other supporter, would care to cast the biography of a man they like in a positive manner than in a negative manner? Common sense, again, says: In all likelihood.
There is, in fact, a high probability of inaccuracy from those sources, though this somehow escapes Delong-Bas's mind. Moreover, according to my count, the author has footnoted Ibn Ghannam only 4 times, but Ibn Bishr no less than 45 times, meaning that the bulk of "most accurate" biographical information of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab comes almost entirely from one source - again, from a pro-Wahhabi. How, then, can Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's biography, as presented in Delong Bas's book, be taken seriously by any objective scholar? It cannot.
While pro-Wahhabis are used as "most accurate" sources, information from Wahhabi opponents "has not been used extensively" because they (1) are "extremely polemical in style rather than factual or straightforward"; (2) they address "later developments" of the Wahhabi movement; and (3) "because of their polemical nature, these accounts tend to be more useful in reconstructing impressions of the movement than in recounting events or teachings." And that's why "polemical works have been largely discarded" in giving the biography of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the "early teachings of the movement."
But what makes the sources of two Wahhabi supporters more accurate than the works of Wahhabi opponents? While the former are closer in time to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, they are his biased supporters. The latter, however, though further away in time from the Wahhabi founder's period of existence, may - and indeed, do - have accurate information, especially on how Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teachings contradicted the teachings that orthodox Sunni Muslims had been following for over 1,000 years.
For example, Delong-Bas provides Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's interpretations of intercession (tawassul) in his "Kitab al-Tawhid" without stating that he contradicted many verses of the Qur'an, hadeeth, and interpretations provided by Sunni orthodox scholars (ulema) throughout the history of Islam (except Ibn Taymiyah and his followers who were the first to deviate from mainstream Sunni Islam on the issue). With an unorthodox interpretation of a genuinely valid Islamic practice, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab accuses the vast lot of Muslims who do 'tawassul' of committing polytheism (shirk) -- the only unforgivable sin in Islam. He then allows his followers to massacre them, believing that they are doing a very noble deed and following the footsteps of the Prophet Muhammad when, in fact, they are doing exactly the opposite.
From a source perspective, how, to any basic researcher, can this book be called a "pathbreaking" and "groundbreaking" work when sources for a book on Wahhabism are provided by Wahhabis, when the sources themselves are written by Wahhabis, and when the research endeavor is partially financed by Wahhabis? I'm sure you see how "objective" and "balanced" Delong-Bas's research is.
Contact me by e-mail for a more detailed unveiling of Delong-Bas's pseudo-scholarship and insult to the moderate/orthodox Muslims. (...)
http://www.amazon.com/Wahhabi-Islam-Natana-J-Delong-Bas/dp/1850436797
'I Do Not Find Any Evidence that Would Make Me Agree that Dr. Natana DeLong-Bas, who taught this year in the Department of Theology at Boston College and in the Department of Near East and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University has not suffered brain rot from prolonged exposure to a killer delusional culture, in her quest for scholarship'
This man is a professor? That college ought to fire his a$$ because of his sheer stupidity.
From a source perspective, how, to any basic researcher, can this book be called a "pathbreaking" and "groundbreaking" work when sources for a book on Wahhabism are provided by Wahhabis, when the sources themselves are written by Wahhabis, and when the research endeavor is partially financed by Wahhabis? I'm sure you see how "objective" and "balanced" Delong-Bas's research is.
DR NATANA DELONG-BAS
Natana J. DeLong-Bas is a Lecturer in Theology at Boston College and is also a Visiting Lecturer in Islamic Studies at Brandeis University, Massachusetts where she teaches a range of courses and conducts research in her field of expertise. Following a decade of teaching and research at Georgetown University's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, she moved to New England. Dr DeLong-Bas is the widely acclaimed author of The Clash Within Civilization: The Jihad for the Soul of Islam in Contemporary Saudi Arabia (Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2007), Notable Muslims: Muslim Builders of World Civilization and Culture (OneWorld Publications, 2006), Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad (Oxford University Press, 2004), and Women in Muslim Family Law (with John L. Esposito, Syracuse University Press, 2001). Dr DeLong-Bas is the Deputy Editor for The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World and the Oxford On-Line Islamic Resource Center. Her original research, farsighted scholarship and informed conclusions have transformed her into a leading authority on contemporary Islam, particularly the modern manifestations of Jihad, militancy and violence. A frequent speaker on Islam, Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism, she is a consultant to international corporations and national governments.
http://www.meco.org.uk/panel2.htm
Perfect.
She looks like she would be right at home with an AK-47 and bombs attached to her in the cabin of an airliner at 35000 ft...
She said she was visiting Saudi Arabia for the second time, this time with her husband and two sons, so that they will discover for themselves that not everything said about Saudi Arabia in the U.S. is accurate.
If the eyes are the windows to the soul, this woman's eyes are a veritable display of evil.
Something tells me that this professor wouldn't find evidence even if Osama personally flew one of the planes into one of the Twin Towers.
What part of Osama saying he did it doesn't this professor understand?
Let me add my few words about Iraq's involvement in attacking the United States.
I suggest anyone who is interested, to do a search on the Internet on the documentation, investigation, and court hearings on the first World Trade Center bombing. Read up on it, and use the "find" feature (Cntl+f) to find every reference to Iraq and Iraqi. There are thousands of references to Saddam's Iraq being involved.
Case closed. Saddam was behind the FIRST bombing, when he tried to take down the Towers. That failed, and he (obviously with help from bin laden) perfected the attack, using airplanes.
Enough said.
A $1 trillion lawsuit claimed Iraq knew that Osama bin Laden was targeting New York prior to Sept. 11 - and that Saddam Hussein encouraged terrorists because he wanted revenge for losing the Gulf War. The action was filed in Manhattan federal court on behalf of 1,400 victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and their families and names bin Laden, his al Qaeda organization and Iraq as defendants. IIRC, the court found for the plaintiffs. Sorry, don't have details.
I think she's a convert.
DeLong-Bas, a self-described "Lutheran pastor's kid," says her interest in Ibn Abd al-Wahhab dates from 1992, when as a graduate student in history at Georgetown she came upon a late 19th-century Orientalist scholar who referred to him as "the Martin Luther of Islam."
from an interesting article on:
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1240
Yeah, I wouldn't put any faith in that videotape where Bin Laden was bragging about it to some fat bastard in Pakistan a few years ago. The whole part where Osama talked about being pleasantly surprised that the planes actually dropped the buildings instead of just shearing off the top floors or causing a few hundred deaths. Yeah, that seemed totally phony to me too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.