Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Islamist" Government
2 views
Skip to first unread message
DKleinecke
Dec 1, 2011, 3:10:21 PM12/1/11
to
It now appears, unsurprisingly, that the outcome of the Arab Spring,
at least in North Africa, will be elected governments that are
described as "islamist". This will, of course, provide a field day for
islamophobes worldwide.
But we know that there is nothing a priori wrong with an "islamist"
government. The possible problems concern how those governments
implement their "islamist" ideas. There are two main concerns:
(1) Continuing electoral freedom. We know, for example, that Adolph
Hitler was elected and used that fact to turn himself into a
dictator. The crucial test for each "islamist" country is whether
that government will allow itself to be voted out of office and
replace by a secular government.
(2) The rights of minorities. It is generally agreed that the Shariah,
in all its variants, should not apply to non-Muslims. Hence the
question of how the "islamist" government governs its religious
minorities is crucial - especially in Egypt.
Unsophisticated Muslims tend to demand that the Constitution of the
nation be the Quran (or words to that effect). This is, of course,
impossible because the Quran does not address many issues that a
constitution must address - like how one government replaces another.
A slightly more sophisticated version of this takes the position that
the none of the laws of the nation can be contrary to the Quran. This
at least allows the nation to adopt enough additional machinery to
function. But this theory stumbles over point 2 above. For example,
a Muslim nation might ban alcoholic beverages or interest - but to its
religious minorities who allow alcohol and/or interest this is
tyranny.
I am not about to tell these "islamist" government what they should do
- only what they should not do. They should maintain electoral
freedom and respect the rights of religious minorities - but exactly
how they go about this is up to them.
If they fail on either of these counts another, perhaps bloodier, Arab
Spring is sure to follow.
at least in North Africa, will be elected governments that are
described as "islamist". This will, of course, provide a field day for
islamophobes worldwide.
But we know that there is nothing a priori wrong with an "islamist"
government. The possible problems concern how those governments
implement their "islamist" ideas. There are two main concerns:
(1) Continuing electoral freedom. We know, for example, that Adolph
Hitler was elected and used that fact to turn himself into a
dictator. The crucial test for each "islamist" country is whether
that government will allow itself to be voted out of office and
replace by a secular government.
(2) The rights of minorities. It is generally agreed that the Shariah,
in all its variants, should not apply to non-Muslims. Hence the
question of how the "islamist" government governs its religious
minorities is crucial - especially in Egypt.
Unsophisticated Muslims tend to demand that the Constitution of the
nation be the Quran (or words to that effect). This is, of course,
impossible because the Quran does not address many issues that a
constitution must address - like how one government replaces another.
A slightly more sophisticated version of this takes the position that
the none of the laws of the nation can be contrary to the Quran. This
at least allows the nation to adopt enough additional machinery to
function. But this theory stumbles over point 2 above. For example,
a Muslim nation might ban alcoholic beverages or interest - but to its
religious minorities who allow alcohol and/or interest this is
tyranny.
I am not about to tell these "islamist" government what they should do
- only what they should not do. They should maintain electoral
freedom and respect the rights of religious minorities - but exactly
how they go about this is up to them.
If they fail on either of these counts another, perhaps bloodier, Arab
Spring is sure to follow.
Yusuf B Gursey
Dec 4, 2011, 3:59:02 AM12/4/11
to
On Dec 1, 3:10=A0pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It now appears, unsurprisingly, that the outcome of the Arab Spring,
> at least in North Africa, will be elected governments that are
> described as "islamist". This will, of course, provide a field day for
> islamophobes worldwide.
>
> But we know that there is nothing a priori wrong with an "islamist"
> government. =A0The possible problems concern how those governments
> It now appears, unsurprisingly, that the outcome of the Arab Spring,
> at least in North Africa, will be elected governments that are
> described as "islamist". This will, of course, provide a field day for
> islamophobes worldwide.
>
> But we know that there is nothing a priori wrong with an "islamist"
> implement their "islamist" ideas. =A0There are two main concerns:
>
> (1) Continuing electoral freedom. We know, for example, that Adolph
> Hitler was elected and used that fact to turn himself into a
> dictator. =A0The crucial test for each "islamist" country is whether
> (1) Continuing electoral freedom. We know, for example, that Adolph
> Hitler was elected and used that fact to turn himself into a
> that government will allow itself to be voted out of office and
> replace by a secular government.
>
> (2) The rights of minorities. It is generally agreed that the Shariah,
> in all its variants, should not apply to non-Muslims. Hence the
> question of how the "islamist" government governs its religious
> minorities is crucial - especially in Egypt.
>
> Unsophisticated Muslims tend to demand that the Constitution of the
> nation be the Quran (or words to that effect). =A0This is, of course,
> replace by a secular government.
>
> (2) The rights of minorities. It is generally agreed that the Shariah,
> in all its variants, should not apply to non-Muslims. Hence the
> question of how the "islamist" government governs its religious
> minorities is crucial - especially in Egypt.
>
> Unsophisticated Muslims tend to demand that the Constitution of the
Only Libya under Qadhdhafi set up a state that was supposed to be
based on the Qur'an alone. Islamists demand that the state be based on
the Sharia, which includes the Sunna and the various rulings of Muslim
scholars throughout the ages. the scholars of Libya used the Sunna to
argue against Qadhdhafi's brand of socialism, whereby Qaddhdafi
declared the Sunna to be unreliable and proceeded to base his state on
the Qur'an alone and the declaration that aynone was fit to interprete
it (well, some were more equal than others, but that is a different
matter). Qadhadhafi set up a "Qur'an Intepretion Committee" that was
supposed to regulate the laws of the state.
> impossible because the Quran does not address many issues that a
> constitution must address - like how one government replaces another.
>
> A slightly more sophisticated version of this takes the position that
> at least allows the nation to adopt enough additional machinery to
> function. =A0But this theory stumbles over point 2 above. =A0For example,
> a Muslim nation might ban alcoholic beverages or interest - but to its
> religious minorities who allow alcohol and/or interest this is
> tyranny.
>
> I am not about to tell these "islamist" government what they should do
> - only what they should not do. =A0They should maintain electoral
> religious minorities who allow alcohol and/or interest this is
> tyranny.
>
> I am not about to tell these "islamist" government what they should do
Yusuf B Gursey
Dec 4, 2011, 12:15:45 PM12/4/11
to
On Dec 4, 3:59=A0am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > implement their "islamist" ideas. =3DA0There are two main concerns:
rulings of the early period and only traditional methods of
intepretation. "moderates"allow later rulings, particulary attempyts
like the Mecelle (ar. majalla), the late 19th cent. Ottoman corpus
that gave Islamic justification to the legal Ottoman reforms in that
period (it influenced the laws of many Middle Eastern states).
> argue against Qadhdhafi's brand of socialism, whereby Qaddhdafi
> declared the Sunna to be unreliable and proceeded to base his state on
> the Qur'an alone and the declaration that aynone was fit to interprete
> it (well, some were more equal than others, but that is a different
> matter). Qadhadhafi set up a "Qur'an Intepretion Committee" that was
> supposed to regulate the laws of the state.
>
>
>
> > impossible because the Quran does not address many issues that a
> > constitution must address - like how one government replaces another.
>
> > A slightly more sophisticated version of this takes the position that
> > the none of the laws of the nation can be contrary to the Quran. =3DA0T=
> On Dec 1, 3:10=3DA0pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > It now appears, unsurprisingly, that the outcome of the Arab Spring,
> > at least in North Africa, will be elected governments that are
> > described as "islamist". This will, of course, provide a field day for
> > islamophobes worldwide.
>
> > But we know that there is nothing a priori wrong with an "islamist"
> > government. =3DA0The possible problems concern how those governments
>
>
>
>
>
> > It now appears, unsurprisingly, that the outcome of the Arab Spring,
> > at least in North Africa, will be elected governments that are
> > described as "islamist". This will, of course, provide a field day for
> > islamophobes worldwide.
>
> > But we know that there is nothing a priori wrong with an "islamist"
> > implement their "islamist" ideas. =3DA0There are two main concerns:
>
> > (1) Continuing electoral freedom. We know, for example, that Adolph
> > Hitler was elected and used that fact to turn himself into a
> > dictator. =3DA0The crucial test for each "islamist" country is whether
> > (1) Continuing electoral freedom. We know, for example, that Adolph
> > Hitler was elected and used that fact to turn himself into a
> > that government will allow itself to be voted out of office and
> > replace by a secular government.
>
> > (2) The rights of minorities. It is generally agreed that the Shariah,
> > in all its variants, should not apply to non-Muslims. Hence the
> > question of how the "islamist" government governs its religious
> > minorities is crucial - especially in Egypt.
>
> > Unsophisticated Muslims tend to demand that the Constitution of the
> > nation be the Quran (or words to that effect). =3DA0This is, of course,
> > replace by a secular government.
>
> > (2) The rights of minorities. It is generally agreed that the Shariah,
> > in all its variants, should not apply to non-Muslims. Hence the
> > question of how the "islamist" government governs its religious
> > minorities is crucial - especially in Egypt.
>
> > Unsophisticated Muslims tend to demand that the Constitution of the
>
> Only Libya under Qadhdhafi set up a state that was supposed to be
> based on the Qur'an alone. Islamists demand that the state be based on
> the Sharia, which includes the Sunna and the various rulings of Muslim
> scholars throughout the ages. the scholars of Libya used the Sunna to
"Fundamentalists" such as Salafists and Wahahbis only allow the
> Only Libya under Qadhdhafi set up a state that was supposed to be
> based on the Qur'an alone. Islamists demand that the state be based on
> the Sharia, which includes the Sunna and the various rulings of Muslim
> scholars throughout the ages. the scholars of Libya used the Sunna to
rulings of the early period and only traditional methods of
intepretation. "moderates"allow later rulings, particulary attempyts
like the Mecelle (ar. majalla), the late 19th cent. Ottoman corpus
that gave Islamic justification to the legal Ottoman reforms in that
period (it influenced the laws of many Middle Eastern states).
> argue against Qadhdhafi's brand of socialism, whereby Qaddhdafi
> declared the Sunna to be unreliable and proceeded to base his state on
> the Qur'an alone and the declaration that aynone was fit to interprete
> it (well, some were more equal than others, but that is a different
> matter). Qadhadhafi set up a "Qur'an Intepretion Committee" that was
> supposed to regulate the laws of the state.
>
>
>
> > impossible because the Quran does not address many issues that a
> > constitution must address - like how one government replaces another.
>
> > A slightly more sophisticated version of this takes the position that
his
> > at least allows the nation to adopt enough additional machinery to
> > function. =3DA0But this theory stumbles over point 2 above. =3DA0For ex=
> > at least allows the nation to adopt enough additional machinery to
ample,
> > a Muslim nation might ban alcoholic beverages or interest - but to its
> > religious minorities who allow alcohol and/or interest this is
> > tyranny.
>
> > I am not about to tell these "islamist" government what they should do
> > - only what they should not do. =3DA0They should maintain electoral
> > a Muslim nation might ban alcoholic beverages or interest - but to its
> > religious minorities who allow alcohol and/or interest this is
> > tyranny.
>
> > I am not about to tell these "islamist" government what they should do
DKleinecke
Dec 5, 2011, 8:27:54 PM12/5/11
to
On Dec 4, 9:15 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Fundamentalists" such as Salafists and Wahahbis only allow the
> rulings of the early period and only traditional methods of
> intepretation. "moderates"allow later rulings, particulary attempyts
> like the Mecelle (ar. majalla), the late 19th cent. Ottoman corpus
> that gave Islamic justification to the legal Ottoman reforms in that
> period (it influenced the laws of many Middle Eastern states).
My copy of the Turkish Law Code (ISBN 983-9541-12-9) calls it "The
> "Fundamentalists" such as Salafists and Wahahbis only allow the
> rulings of the early period and only traditional methods of
> intepretation. "moderates"allow later rulings, particulary attempyts
> like the Mecelle (ar. majalla), the late 19th cent. Ottoman corpus
> that gave Islamic justification to the legal Ottoman reforms in that
> period (it influenced the laws of many Middle Eastern states).
Mejelle". It has a number of features I would just as soon not live
under but it does seem to be, legalistically speaking, a decent
workable law code. So far as I know no other comparable Islamic Code
of Civil Law exists. But "old" rulings of the kind the Salafis allege
they are following are very rare in it and I assume It is quite
unacceptable to them.
I have argued elsewhere that the self-designated Salafis do not follow
any principles other than their own prejudices and that the Hanbalis
are not a real school of law - rather they are a school of anti-law
being a way to deny the validity of the other three schools.
But what matters is not the official law and regulations - rather it
is how the principles are applied. Stalinist Russia boasted a very
enlightened constitution but actual conditions were quite the
opposite. It is crucial for all of us to wait and see what happens.
It is possible that, in fact, "Islam is the Answer". I am unsure what
the question was but that is just my personal limitation.
Yusuf B Gursey
Dec 6, 2011, 7:14:03 AM12/6/11
to
On Dec 5, 8:27=A0pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 9:15 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Fundamentalists" such as Salafists and Wahahbis only allow the
> > rulings of the early period and only traditional methods of
> > intepretation. "moderates"allow later rulings, particulary attempyts
> > like the Mecelle (ar. majalla), the late 19th cent. Ottoman corpus
> > that gave Islamic justification to the legal Ottoman reforms in that
> > period (it influenced the laws of many Middle Eastern states).
>
> My copy of the Turkish Law Code (ISBN 983-9541-12-9) calls it "The
> Mejelle". =A0It has a number of features I would just as soon not live
> On Dec 4, 9:15 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Fundamentalists" such as Salafists and Wahahbis only allow the
> > rulings of the early period and only traditional methods of
> > intepretation. "moderates"allow later rulings, particulary attempyts
> > like the Mecelle (ar. majalla), the late 19th cent. Ottoman corpus
> > that gave Islamic justification to the legal Ottoman reforms in that
> > period (it influenced the laws of many Middle Eastern states).
>
> My copy of the Turkish Law Code (ISBN 983-9541-12-9) calls it "The
Modern Turkish <c> is pronounced as English <j>, hence the differences
in spelling. Turkish <e> is in general an open sound (some dialects
and Azeri, and Old Turkic, distinguish between open and closed /e/.any
Turkologists and Altaicists arguing that they are seperate phonmems)
not far from /a/ in Arabic with moderate imala, and not far from
Iranian Persian short /a/. teh degree of openness varies among Turkish
dialects.
> under but it does seem to be, legalistically speaking, a decent
> of Civil Law exists. But "old" rulings of the kind the Salafis allege
> they are following are very rare in it and I assume It is quite
> unacceptable to them.
>
> I have argued elsewhere that the self-designated Salafis do not follow
> any principles other than their own prejudices and that the Hanbalis
> are not a real school of law - rather they are a school of anti-law
> being a way to deny the validity of the other three schools.
>
I disagree that this is true of traditional Hanbalism, but it could be
> they are following are very rare in it and I assume It is quite
> unacceptable to them.
>
> I have argued elsewhere that the self-designated Salafis do not follow
> any principles other than their own prejudices and that the Hanbalis
> are not a real school of law - rather they are a school of anti-law
> being a way to deny the validity of the other three schools.
>
argued for the Wahhabi offshoot of it (particularly in its more
militant manifestations), which tends to dominate modern Hanbalism.
> But what matters is not the official law and regulations - rather it
> enlightened constitution but actual conditions were quite the
> opposite. =A0It is crucial for all of us to wait and see what happens.
>
> It is possible that, in fact, "Islam is the Answer". =A0I am unsure what
Yusuf B Gursey
Dec 6, 2011, 7:49:55 AM12/6/11
to
On Dec 4, 3:59=A0am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 3:10=3DA0pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > It now appears, unsurprisingly, that the outcome of the Arab Spring,
> > at least in North Africa, will be elected governments that are
> > described as "islamist". This will, of course, provide a field day for
> > islamophobes worldwide.
>
> > But we know that there is nothing a priori wrong with an "islamist"
> > government. =3DA0The possible problems concern how those governments
>
>
>
>
>
> > It now appears, unsurprisingly, that the outcome of the Arab Spring,
> > at least in North Africa, will be elected governments that are
> > described as "islamist". This will, of course, provide a field day for
> > islamophobes worldwide.
>
> > But we know that there is nothing a priori wrong with an "islamist"
> > implement their "islamist" ideas. =3DA0There are two main concerns:
>
> > (1) Continuing electoral freedom. We know, for example, that Adolph
> > Hitler was elected and used that fact to turn himself into a
> > dictator. =3DA0The crucial test for each "islamist" country is whether
> > (1) Continuing electoral freedom. We know, for example, that Adolph
> > Hitler was elected and used that fact to turn himself into a
> > that government will allow itself to be voted out of office and
> > replace by a secular government.
>
> > (2) The rights of minorities. It is generally agreed that the Shariah,
> > in all its variants, should not apply to non-Muslims. Hence the
> > question of how the "islamist" government governs its religious
> > minorities is crucial - especially in Egypt.
>
> > Unsophisticated Muslims tend to demand that the Constitution of the
> > nation be the Quran (or words to that effect). =3DA0This is, of course,
> > replace by a secular government.
>
> > (2) The rights of minorities. It is generally agreed that the Shariah,
> > in all its variants, should not apply to non-Muslims. Hence the
> > question of how the "islamist" government governs its religious
> > minorities is crucial - especially in Egypt.
>
> > Unsophisticated Muslims tend to demand that the Constitution of the
>
> Only Libya under Qadhdhafi set up a state that was supposed to be
> based on the Qur'an alone. Islamists demand that the state be based on
> the Sharia, which includes the Sunna and the various rulings of Muslim
> scholars throughout the ages. the scholars of Libya used the Sunna to
> argue against Qadhdhafi's brand of socialism, whereby Qaddhdafi
> declared the Sunna to be unreliable and proceeded to base his state on
> the Qur'an alone and the declaration that aynone was fit to interprete
> it (well, some were more equal than others, but that is a different
> matter). Qadhadhafi set up a "Qur'an Intepretion Committee" that was
> supposed to regulate the laws of the state.
>
at the other end, less open to interpretion of Qur'an only schools is
> Only Libya under Qadhdhafi set up a state that was supposed to be
> based on the Qur'an alone. Islamists demand that the state be based on
> the Sharia, which includes the Sunna and the various rulings of Muslim
> scholars throughout the ages. the scholars of Libya used the Sunna to
> argue against Qadhdhafi's brand of socialism, whereby Qaddhdafi
> declared the Sunna to be unreliable and proceeded to base his state on
> the Qur'an alone and the declaration that aynone was fit to interprete
> it (well, some were more equal than others, but that is a different
> matter). Qadhadhafi set up a "Qur'an Intepretion Committee" that was
> supposed to regulate the laws of the state.
>
the little known Za:hiriyya (Z is the emphatic as Zaby), which is a
Qur'an literalist school, found in N. Afrca and al-Andalus (Muslim
Spain) in the Middle Ages. it was declared legitimate in the Amman
Declaration of 200
>
>
> > impossible because the Quran does not address many issues that a
> > constitution must address - like how one government replaces another.
>
> > A slightly more sophisticated version of this takes the position that
his
> > at least allows the nation to adopt enough additional machinery to
> > function. =3DA0But this theory stumbles over point 2 above. =3DA0For ex=
> > at least allows the nation to adopt enough additional machinery to
ample,
> > a Muslim nation might ban alcoholic beverages or interest - but to its
> > religious minorities who allow alcohol and/or interest this is
> > tyranny.
>
> > I am not about to tell these "islamist" government what they should do
> > - only what they should not do. =3DA0They should maintain electoral
> > a Muslim nation might ban alcoholic beverages or interest - but to its
> > religious minorities who allow alcohol and/or interest this is
> > tyranny.
>
> > I am not about to tell these "islamist" government what they should do
DKleinecke
Dec 6, 2011, 8:57:17 PM12/6/11
to
On Dec 6, 4:49=A0am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> at the other end, less open to interpretion of Qur'an only schools is
> the little known Za:hiriyya (Z is the emphatic as Zaby), which is a
> Qur'an literalist school, found in N. Afrca and al-Andalus (Muslim
> Spain) in the Middle Ages. it was declared legitimate in the Amman
> Declaration of 200
I was of the impression that Ibn Hazm was the last Zahiri. He died in
> at the other end, less open to interpretion of Qur'an only schools is
> the little known Za:hiriyya (Z is the emphatic as Zaby), which is a
> Qur'an literalist school, found in N. Afrca and al-Andalus (Muslim
> Spain) in the Middle Ages. it was declared legitimate in the Amman
> Declaration of 200
1064 CE.
We know of more abortive legal schools of which the most famous is al-
Tabari's. It is not quite clear how and where the idea of the schools
arose. I am inclined to think it was another result of al-Shafi'i's
career. It looks like before al-Shafi'i the legal schools in Madina
and Baghdad had relatively little contact and did not feel in
competition. Then the young al-Shafi'i left Madina eager to reform
what he saw as the uncouth school of Baghdad. He failed miserably and
barely escaped with his life. Retreating to Egypt he spent the rest
of his life trying to combine the two schools. He failed at this too.
All he succeeded in doing was creating a third school. At this point
in time there were plenty of people who were disgusted with the idea
of any school. I think that is the right way to read al-Bukhari. This
anti-school movement ended up, after some confusion, as the fourth
school - the Hanbalis.
But as I read the literature none of these old schools really matter
much any more. There has been too much evolution. The scholars in
Saudi Arabia appear to prefer to be called Hanbalis. They are, of
course Wahhabis. But they want us to think of the Wahhabi "school" as
the proper heir of all the old Hanbalis. It is far beyond my
competence to discuss the fine structure of the Hanbali school.
Yusuf B Gursey
Dec 6, 2011, 10:21:33 PM12/6/11
to
On Dec 6, 8:57=A0pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We know of more abortive legal schools of which the most famous is al-
> Tabari's. =A0It is not quite clear how and where the idea of the schools
> barely escaped with his life. =A0Retreating to Egypt he spent the rest
> Saudi Arabia appear to prefer to be called Hanbalis. =A0They are, of
because Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab based himself on the Hanbali school.
> course Wahhabis. =A0But they want us to think of the Wahhabi "school" as
> the proper heir of all the old Hanbalis. =A0It is far beyond my
> On Dec 6, 4:49=3DA0am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > at the other end, less open to interpretion of Qur'an only schools is
> > the little known Za:hiriyya (Z is the emphatic as Zaby), which is a
> > Qur'an literalist school, found in N. Afrca and al-Andalus (Muslim
> > Spain) in the Middle Ages. it was declared legitimate in the Amman
> > Declaration of 200
>
> I was of the impression that Ibn Hazm was the last Zahiri. He died in
> 1064 CE.
perhaps he was quoted by others later.
>
> > at the other end, less open to interpretion of Qur'an only schools is
> > the little known Za:hiriyya (Z is the emphatic as Zaby), which is a
> > Qur'an literalist school, found in N. Afrca and al-Andalus (Muslim
> > Spain) in the Middle Ages. it was declared legitimate in the Amman
> > Declaration of 200
>
> I was of the impression that Ibn Hazm was the last Zahiri. He died in
> 1064 CE.
>
> We know of more abortive legal schools of which the most famous is al-
> arose. I am inclined to think it was another result of al-Shafi'i's
> career. =A0It looks like before al-Shafi'i the legal schools in Madina
> and Baghdad had relatively little contact and did not feel in
> competition. Then the young al-Shafi'i left Madina eager to reform
> what he saw as the uncouth school of Baghdad. =A0He failed miserably and
> competition. Then the young al-Shafi'i left Madina eager to reform
> barely escaped with his life. =A0Retreating to Egypt he spent the rest
> of his life trying to combine the two schools. He failed at this too.
> All he succeeded in doing was creating a third school. =A0At this point
> in time there were plenty of people who were disgusted with the idea
> of any school. =A0I think that is the right way to read al-Bukhari. This
> anti-school movement ended up, after some confusion, as the fourth
> school - the Hanbalis.
>
> But as I read the literature none of these old schools really matter
> much any more. =A0There has been too much evolution. =A0The scholars in
> school - the Hanbalis.
>
> But as I read the literature none of these old schools really matter
> Saudi Arabia appear to prefer to be called Hanbalis. =A0They are, of
because Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab based himself on the Hanbali school.
> course Wahhabis. =A0But they want us to think of the Wahhabi "school" as
> the proper heir of all the old Hanbalis. =A0It is far beyond my
0 new messages