What do you think?
Rate this book
Religion, Culture, and Public Life
صناعة السلفية: الإصلاح الإسلامي في القرن العشرين
ترجمنا هذا الكتاب الذي بين يديك. كتاب (صناعة السلفية)، الذي يرصد عملية تشكُّل السلفية في نسختها المعاصرة منذ عشرينيات القرن العشرين تقريبًا وصولًا إلى تسعينياته، مركزًا اهتمامه على الحقبة الأولى، وملامح السلفية فيها، وتطورها حتى آلت إلى السلفية التي نعرف
477 pages, Paperback
First published December 8, 2015
9 people are currently reading
368 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
April 25, 2020
دراسة حيدة
عن مفهوم السلفية
مع التركيز على التفريق بين السلفية النقاوية والسلفية الحداثية
أعجبني قوة طرح الكاتب في موضوع ان الأفغاني ومحمد عبده لم يسميا حركتهم بالسلفية الحداثية ولم يتطرقا لها في أدبياتهم ابداً
وأنها يبدو انها إجتهاد خاطيء لأحد المستشرقيين سار عليه الكثير من بعده
منهجية الكتاب جيدة من خلال محاولة تتبع تطور مفهوم السلفية من خلال تتبع تفاصيل حياة وتحولات سلفي مغربي مشهور وهو تقي الدين الهلالي مع التركيز على تأثير رشيد رضا من ناحية والوهابية النجدية من ناحية أخرى
كانت فكرة ذكية لكن عابها التطويل
لم يعجبني أبداً إستخدام المترجم عمر بسيوني على مايقارب مئة صفحة من الكتاب ليمارس دور المصحح والناقد والمتتبع للأخطاء
إنما نفر من كتب العرب في هذه القضايا لكتب الأجانب بحثاً عن قوة المنهج العلمي في الدراسات والحياد وعدم التأثر
أنا هنا أبحث عن وجهة نظر الكاتب فلا يعقل أن تزاحمه وجهة نظر المترجم بربع الكتاب تقريباً
ويشهد الله اني أستفيد من كتابات غير العرب في قضايا إسلامية وتفاصيلها أكثر من كتابنا بشكل عام
فما بالك والمترجم المحترم سلفي سابق أيضاً، بالتالي سيكون متأثر بطريقة أو بأخرى ، مهما كان مترجماً جيداً
عن مفهوم السلفية
مع التركيز على التفريق بين السلفية النقاوية والسلفية الحداثية
أعجبني قوة طرح الكاتب في موضوع ان الأفغاني ومحمد عبده لم يسميا حركتهم بالسلفية الحداثية ولم يتطرقا لها في أدبياتهم ابداً
وأنها يبدو انها إجتهاد خاطيء لأحد المستشرقيين سار عليه الكثير من بعده
منهجية الكتاب جيدة من خلال محاولة تتبع تطور مفهوم السلفية من خلال تتبع تفاصيل حياة وتحولات سلفي مغربي مشهور وهو تقي الدين الهلالي مع التركيز على تأثير رشيد رضا من ناحية والوهابية النجدية من ناحية أخرى
كانت فكرة ذكية لكن عابها التطويل
لم يعجبني أبداً إستخدام المترجم عمر بسيوني على مايقارب مئة صفحة من الكتاب ليمارس دور المصحح والناقد والمتتبع للأخطاء
إنما نفر من كتب العرب في هذه القضايا لكتب الأجانب بحثاً عن قوة المنهج العلمي في الدراسات والحياد وعدم التأثر
أنا هنا أبحث عن وجهة نظر الكاتب فلا يعقل أن تزاحمه وجهة نظر المترجم بربع الكتاب تقريباً
ويشهد الله اني أستفيد من كتابات غير العرب في قضايا إسلامية وتفاصيلها أكثر من كتابنا بشكل عام
فما بالك والمترجم المحترم سلفي سابق أيضاً، بالتالي سيكون متأثر بطريقة أو بأخرى ، مهما كان مترجماً جيداً
March 29, 2019
حول مسار صناعة مفهوم السلفية في القرن العشرين ، وعلاقته بحركات الإصلاح الإسلامي الحديثة ومسألة امتلاكه واستعماله ،وتحولاته في خضم القرن العشرين .
من أجود الكتب التي تناولت مسألة السلفية .
من أجود الكتب التي تناولت مسألة السلفية .
December 31, 2024
In the Making of Salafism Henri Lauziere seeks to answer one of the fundamental dilemmas that presents itself in contemporary Islamic thought, asks how come we have wahabi, or purist salafist, associated with modernist rationalist reformers under the same term? How do we make sense of this? What is the historical origins of this? And conceptually, what are we to make of this salafism and what is the relationship between these strands exactly is it, and if it does, how does it emerge?
Lauziere traces conceptual confusion between modernist and purist form and the curious feedback loops of orientalist literature and modernist reform movements. In doing he so gives a vivid tour of the transnational networks, scholarly transmissions and influence between scholars in the 20th century through the figure of the Sh Al-Hilali and his vast travels from the Magreb to India, to Germany to Saudi Arabia; and we get to meet characters such as King Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia or Arsalan, Rashid Rida and as well as Bin Baz and Albanee. Interestingly for me at least, was the light that it threw on the decisions of Rashid Rida and various tensions that played out in his thought. Surprisingly, I found myself sympathetic to the critique of purist salafism, against neo-traditionist Islam.
Furthermore, it traces how each form of Salafism also relate to different kinds imagined communities of Islam and how territorial-Islamic nationalism and a transnational-pan Islamic led to different demands on form of salafi.
This would prove to be very significant, for while salafis could afford to be pragmatic in their quest for allies in anti-colonial and nationalism struggles, the purist rigor markedly increased with success of independence struggles. It would seems, that once the struggle against the West had been won, it mattered very little what kind of character and specifically what kind of Islam that made up the character of the pan-Islamic nation. In the faint glimmers of this united pan-Islamic nation, we see the attraction of the purity and vibrancy of the early predecessors, before the schools of laws and theology all got in the way. It was these social institutions, it would seem that, created all the difference and barriers that we seem to have today. Only a stripped pristine and pure Islam, one would think, would be able to unite the lands of Islam. Within these inchoate conceptions of Islamic nationhood we can see the origin of tensions that between Islamists and salafi parties that beset their relations in the Arab Spring, particularly in Egypt and Tunisia.
Yet as the challenge of decolonisation waned, the attention paid to the issues of purities and creeds led to tensions within salafi circles. For one thing as more and more attention was given the correct creed, what was doctrinally previously silent and grey were increasingly a point of dispute and subject to charismatic leadership. In addition while all salafis agreed upon the singular influence of Ibn Taymmiya and his illustrious student, they disagreed on the meaning of his legacy and how to interpret the copious and dense of their body of work. These points of difference became the sources of bitter dispute within salafi circles.
Later we see the ideologisation of salafism; whereby the buzz word of ‘manhaj’ came to symbolise that not creed alone nor legal madhab was sufficient to be considered salafi. Now it was the all-encompassing pristine salafi understanding no longer restricted to doctrine, to law, but to political arrangement and attitude to governance as well.
Salafism had transformed from a century ago; no longer did salafis have to engage with the West or their Muslim allies to remove the colonial domination, now the prime aim of purist salafism was a concerted effort to purify Islamic societies from all impurities, including ideological ones. A shift had gone from a pragmatism to stringent exclusionist; if you were not following the manhaj, ie the particular group of scholars, then you were simply not sufficiently salafi enough. Purity trumps all.
While I’ve been exposed to salafi thought for over twenty years there is much that I learned especially its conceptual genealogy. As non-historian let alone a specialist in its field; I’m not able to assess the strength of historical argument with respect to sources, but what did surprise me was how little my previous assessment of some Salafi normative claims were affected by know its emergence and history. In many ways while Lauziere is clearly sympathetic to the anti-colonialism of salafism, and less enamoured by pristine salafism, ultimately this study has little to nothing to say about these claims save that they’re not the abstract foundational claims that they present them to be. Yet of course that is obviously true for most schools of thought, they’re all inflected by historical winds, but ultimately any creed, will be judged by its own terms rather than by examining its origins or its historical changes.
What I am left wondering is the extent to which purist salafism can be explained by not the shift or expansion from a more open version to a more stringent one, but why such a purist version emerged and became so more prominent in the first place? What were the conditions of Muslims in the late 19th century, the religious establishment and the post-classical Islam to which the purist salafis set them selves against and from which the movement defined itself against. In such an examination, I suspect, the origins of purist salafism has the potential to live up to its original promise to engage in a serious conversation of how the mainstream tradition must move on and not hanker for a bygone world.
It is telling, for example, that Rashid Rida acceded to the Sallafi wahabi doctrine with the mind that it, rather than the mainstream tradition he relentlessly criticised for being ossified and as a hindrance to success. For him it was the salafi tradition that had the ability to unite the Muslims and progress their conditions such that they regain their former dignity. Perhaps then promise in purist salafism, remains unfulfilled and we have to look harder at the original salafi diagnosis and not get distracted by its later facile prescriptions.
Lauziere traces conceptual confusion between modernist and purist form and the curious feedback loops of orientalist literature and modernist reform movements. In doing he so gives a vivid tour of the transnational networks, scholarly transmissions and influence between scholars in the 20th century through the figure of the Sh Al-Hilali and his vast travels from the Magreb to India, to Germany to Saudi Arabia; and we get to meet characters such as King Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia or Arsalan, Rashid Rida and as well as Bin Baz and Albanee. Interestingly for me at least, was the light that it threw on the decisions of Rashid Rida and various tensions that played out in his thought. Surprisingly, I found myself sympathetic to the critique of purist salafism, against neo-traditionist Islam.
Furthermore, it traces how each form of Salafism also relate to different kinds imagined communities of Islam and how territorial-Islamic nationalism and a transnational-pan Islamic led to different demands on form of salafi.
This would prove to be very significant, for while salafis could afford to be pragmatic in their quest for allies in anti-colonial and nationalism struggles, the purist rigor markedly increased with success of independence struggles. It would seems, that once the struggle against the West had been won, it mattered very little what kind of character and specifically what kind of Islam that made up the character of the pan-Islamic nation. In the faint glimmers of this united pan-Islamic nation, we see the attraction of the purity and vibrancy of the early predecessors, before the schools of laws and theology all got in the way. It was these social institutions, it would seem that, created all the difference and barriers that we seem to have today. Only a stripped pristine and pure Islam, one would think, would be able to unite the lands of Islam. Within these inchoate conceptions of Islamic nationhood we can see the origin of tensions that between Islamists and salafi parties that beset their relations in the Arab Spring, particularly in Egypt and Tunisia.
Yet as the challenge of decolonisation waned, the attention paid to the issues of purities and creeds led to tensions within salafi circles. For one thing as more and more attention was given the correct creed, what was doctrinally previously silent and grey were increasingly a point of dispute and subject to charismatic leadership. In addition while all salafis agreed upon the singular influence of Ibn Taymmiya and his illustrious student, they disagreed on the meaning of his legacy and how to interpret the copious and dense of their body of work. These points of difference became the sources of bitter dispute within salafi circles.
Later we see the ideologisation of salafism; whereby the buzz word of ‘manhaj’ came to symbolise that not creed alone nor legal madhab was sufficient to be considered salafi. Now it was the all-encompassing pristine salafi understanding no longer restricted to doctrine, to law, but to political arrangement and attitude to governance as well.
Salafism had transformed from a century ago; no longer did salafis have to engage with the West or their Muslim allies to remove the colonial domination, now the prime aim of purist salafism was a concerted effort to purify Islamic societies from all impurities, including ideological ones. A shift had gone from a pragmatism to stringent exclusionist; if you were not following the manhaj, ie the particular group of scholars, then you were simply not sufficiently salafi enough. Purity trumps all.
While I’ve been exposed to salafi thought for over twenty years there is much that I learned especially its conceptual genealogy. As non-historian let alone a specialist in its field; I’m not able to assess the strength of historical argument with respect to sources, but what did surprise me was how little my previous assessment of some Salafi normative claims were affected by know its emergence and history. In many ways while Lauziere is clearly sympathetic to the anti-colonialism of salafism, and less enamoured by pristine salafism, ultimately this study has little to nothing to say about these claims save that they’re not the abstract foundational claims that they present them to be. Yet of course that is obviously true for most schools of thought, they’re all inflected by historical winds, but ultimately any creed, will be judged by its own terms rather than by examining its origins or its historical changes.
What I am left wondering is the extent to which purist salafism can be explained by not the shift or expansion from a more open version to a more stringent one, but why such a purist version emerged and became so more prominent in the first place? What were the conditions of Muslims in the late 19th century, the religious establishment and the post-classical Islam to which the purist salafis set them selves against and from which the movement defined itself against. In such an examination, I suspect, the origins of purist salafism has the potential to live up to its original promise to engage in a serious conversation of how the mainstream tradition must move on and not hanker for a bygone world.
It is telling, for example, that Rashid Rida acceded to the Sallafi wahabi doctrine with the mind that it, rather than the mainstream tradition he relentlessly criticised for being ossified and as a hindrance to success. For him it was the salafi tradition that had the ability to unite the Muslims and progress their conditions such that they regain their former dignity. Perhaps then promise in purist salafism, remains unfulfilled and we have to look harder at the original salafi diagnosis and not get distracted by its later facile prescriptions.
September 29, 2021
An excellent book that follows the life of a prominent salafi scholar Taqiyyuddin Hilali and his encounters with different phases and personalities of salafism. Hilali was a globe-trotter, hence this choice of the author. The author skillfully demonstrates a major transformation that the salafism went through, starting from a more rationalist, reformist and nationalist salafism of the first half of the twentieth century to a more conformist, dogmatic, puritan salafism of the end of the century.
Although I had been exposed to salafism for more than 20 years, I still found the book refreshing in whole and an eyeopener in some points. The style of the book is not tiresome, it is easy to follow the logic of the historical developments. The author is balanced and tries to understand salafis as objectively as possible.
Although I had been exposed to salafism for more than 20 years, I still found the book refreshing in whole and an eyeopener in some points. The style of the book is not tiresome, it is easy to follow the logic of the historical developments. The author is balanced and tries to understand salafis as objectively as possible.
May 25, 2020
كتاب ممتع وجميل ولغة سلسلة؛ يعرف هذا الكتاب بمصطلح " السلفية" وكيفية تكونه في اخر القرن التاسع عشر وبداية القرن العشرين وكيفية تطور مصطلح "السلفية" من الاطار الفني الى شكلها الحديث، الكتاب يعرف بالحركات السلفية المتعددة وابرز اعلامها و اوجه التشابه والخلاف بينها وكيفية تطورها وتوحدها في فترات للحرب ضد المستعمر والدعوة للقومية الاسلامية واختلافها وتشابكها وحربها في فترات زوال الاستعمار والاهداف المشتركة بالاضافة الى علاقتها مع السلطة والسياسة والثورة والخلاف العقدي والفكري والمذهبي والتدين المحلي بصيغة بسيطة و واضحة.
يصلح هذا الكتاب كمقدمة لفهم السلفية ومدخل الى الكتاب الموسوعي "ما بعد السلفية" كما اشار المترجم عمرو بسيوني.
July 16, 2020
An excellent summarized history of the formation of Salafism in the 20th century.
July 17, 2021
Buku yang menarik dalam melihat salafi, salafiyah atau salafisme sebagai aliran pemikiran yang paling kontroversi dalam sejarah moden dunia Islam tetapi yang menimbulkan kesukaran dalam memberikan definisi yang tepat.
Pendedahan Henri Lauziere mendorong kita untuk lebih berhati-hati dalam membakulkan pemikiran yang seiras atau berkongsi beberapa persamaan dalam satu kepompong.
Pendedahan Henri Lauziere mendorong kita untuk lebih berhati-hati dalam membakulkan pemikiran yang seiras atau berkongsi beberapa persamaan dalam satu kepompong.
August 5, 2018
Urgently relevant. Properly positions modern Salafism within the history of Islamic ideas, relates it to 20th century political history, and dispels some common misconceptions and confusions. For those interested in contemporary Salafi Puritanism, this book explains how it developed. Understudied connections between Rashid Rida and the Saudi establishment are explored, as well as how the new circumstances of a post-colonial world created conditions for confrontative puritanism.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews