Labeling is a delicate issue. A label carries specific notions and meaning about that which is labeled. It usually decreases complexity, for good or for bad. We often need to reduce complexity in order to communicate. However, the mechanisms of in- and exclusion that are at work can easily distort the way a person feels about herself, the way somebody is represented and the aspirations of people or a person. In this sense labeling is innately political. Everybody encounters this problem in everyday life. Just consider the label “moderate Muslim” which we encounter more often these days. What preconceived notions are carried along and who is excluded is clear: A bearded Muslim praying five times a day and wearing a long qamis or a woman wearing a headscarf are surely not eligible for this label.

The same is true for many researchers, including myself: I have used Salafi or Salafist a lot. My idea was: Salafis are different from mainstream Muslims, they belong to a intellectual current within Islam called Salafism and they can be identifiedSalafism is based on the emulation of the life of the prophet Muhammad and the first generation(s) of Muslims (al-salaf al-salih, hence the term salafiyyah or Salafism) as the perfect Muslim model in every part of life. It implies a return to the original religious sources–Quran and Sunnah–in order to know how Muhammad and his companions have actually lived. In comparison with “mainstream” Muslims salafi-inspired activists are very careful to follow the model in every aspect of life.. Identification of categories (labels) is helpful: it helps clarity and communication about your research. So far so good.

Well, I have asked quite a few activists so far: May I call you Salafi? It works well with those activists that call themselves Salafi. However, others, which I would put into the Salafi category, told me that they do not like the term although they are following the salaf al-salih. They see themselves as Muslims and they do not want to establish a new group within Islam. That would potentially sow fitna= conflict, discord
This term is also employed to refer to the conflict about the succession of the prophet Muhammad as the leader of a the Muslim community in the early history of Islam. within the Muslim community. Others do not want to be associated with the Salafis or Salafism because it implies radicalism and violence in the broader public. I have encountered many discussions on forums about the label. It is not a resolved issue among the activists. Some resort to a trusted ‘alim= scholar, scientist
In general, religious scholars in Islam are called ‘alim or ‘ulama (plural). in order to get an answer.

Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani’sAl-Albani (1914-1999) is one of the important religious authorities for activists inspired by the salafiyyah. Born in Shkodër (Northern Albania) he migrated with his family at a young age to Damascus. Nasr al-Din al-Albani specialised in hadith science mainly through intensive self studies. Due to religious tension he had to migrate several times in his life, among other places to Saudi-Arabia and to Jordan where he died in 1999 at the age of 87. For his “official” web site check www.alalbany.net (Arabic). lecture on “What is salafiyyah” (videoThe lecture circulates in different translations and as different audio files in forums and elsewhere. Here is one example from YouTube (part one of three, Arabic/English):

) is one reference point for many activists. He points out how Salafi or salafiyyah are an ascription to the first three generations of Muslims who are, according to a hadithBukhari, book 2, volume 48, hadith 819: Narrated Zahdam bin Mudrab: I heard Imran bin Husain saying, “The Prophet said, ‘The best people are those living in my generation, then those coming after them, and then those coming after (the second generation).” Imran said “I do not know whether the Prophet mentioned two or three generations after your present generation. The Prophet added, ‘There will be some people after you, who will be dishonest and will not be trustworthy and will give witness (evidences) without being asked to give witness, and will vow but will not fulfill their vows, and fatness will appear among them.”, the best people. Following his argumentation, the ascription to the salafiyyah…

“is not an ascription to a person or a group of persons… rather this ascription is an ascription to infallibility… because it is impossible for the salaf al-salih (the first three generations of Muslims) to unite upon misguidance” (original quote4:04 min. in the video, my own transcription:
هذه النسبة ليست نسبة إلى شخص أو أشخاص… و هي نسبة إلى العصمة…لأن السلف الصالح يستخيل أن يجمع على ال(ض)لالة).

Having understood this, it would be impossible for a Muslim to reject the salafiyyah since this would mean a rejection of the best people or a rejection of infallibility. Which Muslim would want this?

There are more fatwas and statements of religious scholars appreciated by Muslim activists who understand the term Salafi not as belonging to one group, one party, one current or one movement within Islam in the current interpretation of membership. It means adhering to the infallible path of Islam, the salafiyyah, which no Muslim can deny. Often activists, forum posters and religious scholars warn against using the term Salafi in the sense of a current religious or political group within Islam.

To make things more complicated: There is a group of Salafi activists who are not hesitant to declare non-Salafi Muslims as being misguided or, to take it one step further, kafir (unbelieving). They consider themselves to belong to the “الفرقة الناجية” (the saved group) alluded to in a hadithAl-Tirmidhi, Kitab al-Iman: “Abdullah bin Amar (RA) relates that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said “Surely things will happen to my people as happened earlier to Israelites, they will resemble each other like one shoe in a pair resembles the other to the extent that if anyone among the Israelites has openly committed adultery to his mother there will be some who will do this in my Ummah as well, verily the Israelites were divided into 72 sections but my people will be divided into 73 sections, all of them will be in the fire except one.” The companions asked, ‘Who are they O Messenger of Allah,’ Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “They are those who will be like me and my companions.” or to the “victorious group” (الطائفة المنصورة) mentioned in several hadiths as well as in the Quran. Obviously there is not a common understanding among activists claiming to be inspired by the salafiyyah

In such a situation a researcher one could stick to the initial categories that were established beforehand as if they were doctrines. I do not think that it is per se wrong to stick to categories in order to be consistent, especially with reference to the theoretical framework. However, when we come to categories applied to research participants the good old anthropologist tradition that researchers need to be receptive to the self-descriptions is useful and fair. This does not mean to accept self-descriptions uncritically. It is not the task of research to take over the language and labels (and thereby the worldview) of research participants as scientific language. Rather, self-descriptions should be taken serious and reflected upon.

Relating back to my initial somewhat careless use of “Salafi” or “Salafist”, I have come to the point of not using “Salafist” (or Islamists) for my research anymore since it suggests membership in a party or something similar. Furthermore, no activists I have encountered has used the term Salafist, Islamist or Salafism so far. So I am left with terms Muslim, salafiyyah and Salafi. However, to resort to “Muslim”, which is the self-ascription of all activists as the lowest common demoninator is not a solution in my opinion. It is too general and indiscriminate in order to be helpful for my ethnography. After all, there are by far enough Muslims who outright reject the salafiyyah thought. Nobody can claim to do research about Muslims in general.

Instead, I talk about “activists inspired by the salafiyyah” in order to name the group of activists I am interested in. Admittedly not the most elegant solution. This label includes those who do not like to be called Salafi and those who really want to be called Salafi. When talking about individuals I will have to see how they describe themselves and take this into account. This is surely not satisfactory but, as many researchers like to stress when entering blurred and unclear territory: It’s all dynamic, in process and veeeeeery complex… and open to suggestions!

Fieldwork | RSS 2.0 | Trackback |