I'm not sure why I have to argue about an article I think I read last October except that I must be far sillier or naive than you could ever be. I might even have cited it myself then for crying out loud.
If you want documented posts on the subject we were discussing, search the archives everyone is worried about. I posted plenty about the Taliban and Deoband.
>. To them, Wahhabism is not a school of thought within Islam, but
> is Islam. The fact that Wahhabism rejected a label gave it a diffuse
> quality, making many of its doctrines and methodologies eminently
> transferable. Wahhabi thought exercised its greatest influence not under
its
> own label, but under the rubric of Salafism. In their literature, Wahhabi
> clerics have consistently described themselves as Salafis, and not
> Wahhabis."
Great. Tell me something I don't know. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Afghans of whatever affililiation, linguistic and cultural background, etc. REJECT Wahhabism. Certainly the Shia groups, but even the Sunni majority. Always have.
> "Of course, neither Wahhabism nor Salafism is represented by some formal
> institution. They are theological orientations and not structured schools
of
> thought.
Something I noted far earlier on the list when discussing the differences between SA and Iran and SA and Pakistan. This is why just about anyone with an armed claque could claim to be a mullah.
It's an all right article for an audience that knows nothing about the topic I guess. It tells me next to nothing about the situation in Afghanistan, which was one of the main thrusts of the exchange that was going before you deposited your load.
Hi and goodbye oh ye great sociological cleric ye!
Charles Jannuzi