Ibn Abdul Wahhab and the Reformation of Islam

One of the problems with the push for reformed Islam is that it has been reformed before.

In the 18th century, Ibn Abdul Wahhab, a prominent cleric in the Najd region of the Arabian Peninsula, was faced with a moral dilemma. Around him Arabians were praying to deceased Muslims and, increasingly, Islam was being taken away from its historical roots due to western influence and in the name of modernity.

So Ibn Abdul Wahhab put forward the idea that anything additional to the Qur'an and the Sunnah - the holy book of Islam and the traditions of the Prophet Mohammed - adds unneeded context to the pure, original form of Islam as heralded by the first generation of Muslims. This belief, though unpopular at the time, heralded the dawn of a reformed Sunni Islam today known as Salafiya or, by a more derogatory name, Wahhabism.

This led to the Wahhab-Saud pact of the 18th century, a deal which was struck between the house of Al-Saud and Ibn Abdul Wahhab, that the Al-Saud family would protect the ideology of Ibn Abdul Wahhab and in exchange the Al-Saud family would be allowed to rule over a Salafi-Islamic state. That deal resurfaced last century: between the Al-Saud ruling family in Saudi Arabia and the Al-Sheikh family, the descendants and heirs of Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

Although the first Saudi state was crushed by the Ottomans, it resurfaced in the 20th century as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - with the help of the British, as Salafiya was still too unpopular for the majority of the Arabian Peninsula. With the potent combination of Arabian oil and the seizure of the Grand Mosque in 1979, Salafiya has been enormously influential in the push for defining Sunni Islam in the modern world. This was condoned by Britain in order to control the Muslim world. And, for a time, it worked.

Today, most Sunni Muslims are at least partially influenced by the Salafi mindset. Those who are not, such as Sufis or the secular Muslims of Syria, are deemed as Kufr (heretics who must be killed) by the larger Sunni population and, for some, seculars and Sufis are considered worse heretics than the Shi'ites.

The need for reformation in Islam is seen by many as obvious.  Even those of the Sufi and secular Muslim mindset would still be willing to genocide Israel to protect Islam - and this is worth noting. However, Islam has been reformed before, and this resulted in the rise and exporting of Salafiya in the Muslim world.

While this did benefit Britain - Salafiya forces Muslims to be purified before attacking non-Muslims - it has now reached the stage where hundreds of thousands of Sunni Muslims are united behind the Salafi doctrine, and so it can no longer be used as a tool by the west for controlling the Muslim world. With the emergence of Al-Qaeda and ISIS, this is obvious to many.

However, if Ibn Abdul Wahhab reformed Islam before, pulled away centuries of Islamic tradition to reveal how the first generation of Muslims behaved, it is clear that there is something at Islam's core that may be considered problematic.

Therefore, reforming Islam to create a more modern religion may actually cause more division and more bloodshed. A modern Islam will be deemed by hundreds of thousands of Muslims as Satanic and, though a popular notion in the west, may just lead to more bloodshed and more harm for Muslims across the globe.

To truly reform Islam would cross boundaries uncrossable for the majority of Muslims. It would involve denouncing actions attributed to the most pious of Muslims, rejecting the Hadeeth and changing the structure of the Qur'an so completely it would be unrecognizable. Sunni Islam may sooner be destroyed completely than reform into an acceptable, modern version that many so desperately want.

Iran is winning its proxy wars, Ikhwan and Salafis fight for the remnants

In Iraq, Syria and Yemen, Iran has been winning its proxy wars.

With the continued destruction of ISIS in Iraq, Shi'ite militias Hashd Ash-Sha'abi are consolidating control of Sunni or mixed areas in Iraq. The battle for Mosul has left the Iraqi Army - comprised of Sunnis and Shi'ites - decimated, so the Iraqi Government will be forced to rely more extensively on Hashd Ash-Sha'abi. Since the militias are fuelled by Islamic Shi'ism, it is not hard to see how Iranian dominance in Iraq is increasing.

The Syrian Arab Army is regaining control of the eastern half of Syria in the provinces of Aleppo, Homs, Raqqa and Deir Ez-Zor. ISIS is steadily losing ground, is unable to gain the city of Deir Ez-Zor as its new capital, and is losing dozens of soldiers in every assault by the Syrian Arab Army. This, together with the victory over the cities of Aleppo and Homs, assures that Bashar Al-Assad will not only control western Syria, but control southern and eastern Syria as well.

In Yemen, the Saudi-led coalition has so far failed to dislodge the Houthis from northern Yemen - in fact, the Houthis are currently winning the war against them. With the destruction of ISIS in Syria and Iraq looming, Saudi Arabia may be forced to augment its funding for Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the hope of dislodging the Houthis from Yemen - however such increased funding would hardly sit well with the Trump Administration and force other world powers, such as Russia, to step in to end the conflict in favour of the Houthis.

With Iraq, Syria and Yemen all set to benefit Iran's political standing in the region, the Salafi worldview - championed by Saudi Arabia - and the Ikhwan worldview - championed by Qatar and Turkey - are fighting over the remains of strategic influence. These will be discussed in more detail below:

1) Egypt

The ousting of Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi (2013) has meant that Abdul Feteh As-Sisi has gained control of Egypt and is cracking down hard on support for the Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood. Though Sisi himself is not a Salafi, he is supported by Saudi Arabia and UAE (Dubai) so as to deny the Ikhwan a safe haven in the largest Arab country. The Ikhwan countries of Qatar and Turkey, correspondingly, have been funneling funds to Islamic State in the Sinai Peninsula through Hamas, to weaken the Sisi government and enable the Muslim Brotherhood to get stronger once again.

2) Libya

As a result of the overthrow of Libyan President Qaddafi, two governments have established themselves in Libya: the Tobruk-based government, assisted by strongman Haftar Al-Khalifa and the Tripoli Government of National Accord, whose tribes overwhelmingly support the Muslim Brotherhood. Again, a proxy-war between the Salafis and the Ikhwan is being played out here.

Though Haftar Al-Khalifa and the Tobruk-based government are not Salafi, they are seeking to quash political Islam, and the Ikhwan in Libya are their priority target, like for President Sisi in Egypt. So far, the Tobruk government (backed by Saudi Arabia) has the upper hand, because its forces are united and the Tripoli-based government (backed by Qatar and Turkey) is experiencing too much infighting. The Tobruk government also has the advantage in Russian support, whereas the Tripoli government does not have the unilateral backing of a superpower.

3) Syria and Iraq

The victory of Iran against ISIS in Syria and Iraq has forced Saudi Arabia and the Ikhwan to pick new sides. The Ikhwan, led by Turkey, have been forced by Russia into supporting peace in Syria with Bashar Al-Assad as its President. This has been agreed to with an implicit understanding that Turkey would be able to later weaken Kurdish influence in Syria.

However, with Salafi frustration at Iranian dominance looming, Saudi Arabia and UAE have been sending more funds to the Syrian Kurds. Though Kurds do not share the Salafi principles, like the Torbuk government in Libya and President Sisi in Egypt, the Kurds are a valuable proxy in the fight against Iran. Saudi Arabia has also been signalling support Iraqi Kurds in their referendum for independence.

Should the Kurds in Syria and Iraq reach independence, Iran would be threatened from within by its own Kurdish population, which is perhaps what Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman means by "bringing the fight to Iran". Rather than a direct confrontation - which is impossible for Saudi Arabia, given they are currently fighting Yemen - enabling the Kurds in Syria and Iraq to create their own autonomous region would be a blow to Iran of enormous proportions.

Yet this would also greatly anger Turkey, which leads to the current Gulf crisis with Qatar.

4) Qatar

Though Saudi Arabia is experiencing political victories over its Ikhwan counterparts in Egypt and Libya, it has grown increasingly frustrated with Qatar's Ikhwan support in Egypt and Libya, its support for Shi'ite groups and serving as a satellite broadcaster of the Ikhwan agenda with Al-Jazeera. Qatar and Turkey both have strong relations with Iran, and this threatens Saudi Arabia's Salafi ideology enormously, which prefers war between Sunnis and Shi'ites over strategic peace which the Ikhwan supports.

(Interestingly, Al-Qaeda also shares this Ikhwan principle of not deliberately stirring a Shi'ite-Sunni war and instead focusing on attacking the west and Israel. ISIS, on the other hand, shares the Saudi desire to wage a war on the Shi'ites by the larger Sunni population.)

In the blockade imposed by Saudi Arabia and her allies against Qatar, Iran and Turkey have rushed to Qatar's aid, which has meant that Turkish-Saudi relations are deteriorating. This means that Saudi Arabia is no longer able to be hindered by Turkey in potential support for the Kurds. This has meant that Saudi is likely to fund the Kurds in Syria and Iraq and, in the future, in Turkey and Iran as well, to decrease Iranian/Ikwhani dominance in the region.



What is really happening is that Iran has largely won the conflicts of Iraq and Syria and is very likely to win in Yemen. The Ikhwan and Salafis are no longer in a position to challenge Iranian dominance in the Middle-East through their ideologies, so instead must use other proxies to defeat one another.

Another proxy war within Islam is being waged. Rather than the Sunni-Shi'ite war of Iraq, this war is a Sunni war between the Salafis and the Ikhwan, and the victor will determine the future direction of political Sunni Islam.

Iran, Ikhwan and Salafi politics realigned

In the modern Middle-East, the worldviews of Iran, the Ikhwan and the Salafis are the most prominent.

Iran's influence on the Middle-East has manifested itself in a variety of different ways. Since the revolution of 1979, it has developed its reputation as a meddler in Arab affairs through creating Hezbollah in Lebanon in 1982 and backing Palestine against Israel. As a result of the Iran-Iraq war, Iran and Syria created an alliance, which has benefited both countries.

Because of the Iraq War (2003), Iranian and Shi'ite dominance in the Middle-East increased greatly. This has been further consolidated by Iranian support for Bashar Al-Assad in the Syrian civil war, and the Arab Spring even allowed Iran to extend its influence into Yemen (though Iran's influence on the Houthis is mostly political, counter to the Media's narrative.) In any case, Iran has benefit enormously from the affairs of Arabs.

The Ikhwani influence on the Middle-East was most prominent in Egypt, where President Mohammed Morsi rose to power in 2012. The Ikhwan, or the Muslim Brotherhood, have long dwelt in Egypt, but never held power before 2012. However, 2013 saw a great reversal in Ikhwan dominance, with Egyptians protesting Mohammed Morsi's rule and forcing him out of office. The Egyptian protest of 2013 was the largest protest in history.

Under the Morsi government, ties between Iran and Egypt were strengthened after decades of hostility. This mirrors Iran's strong ties to Qatar, Turkey and Hamas. In every country where the Ikhwan worldview dominates, a close yet complex relationship develops between said countries and Iran. Both the Iranian and Ikhwan worldview are more pro-Palestinian than their Salafi counterparts.

Understanding this, then, helps us glimpse into what is going on between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia would like Qatar not to continue its support for the Ikhwan ideology and stop being as close to Iran. This is an affront not only against Iran, but also against Turkey and Hamas, who share Qatar's ideology. UAE (Dubai) and Egypt have sided with Saudi Arabia because the Ikhwan threatens the Egyptian government, which the UAE supports.

Dangerously for Saudi Arabia, targeting Qatar for supporting the Ikhwan exposes Saudi Arabia's own implicit alliance with Israel. The reason for this alliance is that Israel benefits from the instability created by Salafi ideology in Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Israel benefits from its enemies fighting each other, and Saudi Arabia provides the perfect ideology from which wars and instability are created.

However, the US is showing impatience at Saudi's own meddling and churning of instability. The US has remained in Afghanistan for the past 16 years and has been in and out of Iraq, from 2003 - 2011 and then from 2014 until present, and the instability in both countries is set to continue. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has continued fighting proxies of Saudi Arabia with no end in sight.

What we are currently witnessing is a realignment of political alliances as a result of impending peace in Syria. In Syria, the Salafis and the Ikhwan were allied against Iran and the Syrian Government. But Russia has forced Turkey - and with it, the Ikhwan support of the Syrian Opposition - into dialogue, and violence has correspondingly been greatly reduced in Syria.

However, with two of Iran's allies decimated - Syria and Iraq - and with the Ikhwan suffering yet another terrible loss, both the Ikhwan and Iran are looking for a new target. Saudi Arabia is that target. This is signaled by Iranian and Turkish support for Qatar in the Gulf crisis.

It seems that, instead of the more recent Qatar-Turkey-Saudi axis against Syria, the Qatar-Turkey-Iran axis will be formed against Saudi Arabia. The deal between Iran and the Ikhwan is probably for the destruction of the Saudi state, replaced by a state run by the Muslim Brotherhood, to decimate Salafi doctrine and reward Turkey for its role in restoring peace to an Iran-backed Syria.

However, such a project would be dangerous at the least. ISIS is eyeing Saudi Arabia as its next target, so the Iran-Ikhwan plan may backfire, and badly.

The divide across Europe

There is a divide across Europe between Globalists and Nationalists, a divide which President Donald Trump is making more observable to the world.

Across the Scandinavian countries, Germany, Netherlands and France, there is a championing of the perspective of the EU, globalism and heightened immigration. In other central European countries, such as Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, there is a drive to preserve national identity, borders and stem Muslim immigration.

Enter President Trump. His decision to begin his second visit in Poland signals to Europe that the American priorities are changing. The US is stepping into a void - a central Europe alienated by the EU. This alienation was caused by economic sanctions on EU countries who resist legislation on immigration. Prior to President Trump, Russia was starting to fill the void in central Europe. Now, the US is signalling that it intends to fill that void.

We are witnessing a realignment of global politics. Poland is now a more significant player than before. The opinions of France and Germany matter less to the US than before. Three different superpower blocks are emerging: one, dominated by Russia and China, succeeding the previously socialist block; the second, with the US, India, Japan, South Korea and central Europe, in which capitalist nationalism is pertinent; the third, with the EU and Turkey leading the way in tense but reciprocal ways.

This rupture between EU and self-determining European countries - created by alienating EU policies - is welcome news by Russia and China. However, it presents a difficulty for Britain. While it has voted for Brexit, there is much damage that has been caused by previous immigration policies similar to those of the EU, and much pressure from the political left to implement a soft Brexit, which would keep Britain in the orbit of the EU. Britain is stuck between the two worldviews of the EU and self-determining nationalism of President Trump.

Western Europe, under the grossly ideological views of the EU, is set to collapse and perhaps even become a new area of dominance for the Islamic world. Time will tell how this will affect the western nationalist and Russian/Chinese blocks. Sadly, for Britain, such a collapse might lead to unrest and even civil war.