Saudi’s Tablighi Jamaat Ban: No More Space for Religion in Its Politics?

Saudi Arabia’s Minister for Islamic Affairs, Dr Abdullatif Al-Alsheikh, recently warned people that the Indian-origin Tablighi Jamaat movement is false and dangerous, and “a gateway to terrorism”.

(Photo: Facebook)

The decision of Saudi Arabia’s Minister for Islamic Affairs, Dr Abdullatif Al-Alsheikh, to warn people that the Indian-origin puritanical movement, Tablighi Jamaat, is false and dangerous, and “a gateway to terrorism” is curious in itself because Wahhabism, the dominant Islamic ideology of the kingdom that houses two of the holiest shrines of the Islamic world, Mecca with its sanctuary, the Ka’aba, and Medina, where Prophet Muhammad lived in exile the last 10 years of his life, is more puritanical than that of the Jamaat.

It is but natural that the Indian media, across platforms, picked up the story and played it up because of Jamaat’s Indian origins – it was founded by Mohammad Ilyas Kandhalvi in Mewat in Haryana in 1926. The Indian media’s motives are curious as well. The right-wing media wants to pick on anything that links Islam and terrorism, and some of the liberal sections are also suspicious of the overt religiosity of the movement.

The Need to Move Away From an Oil-Dependent Economy

The Urdu press and opinion leaders of the community in the country have raised their voice in defence of the Jamaat as the organisation is looked upon with favour because of its religiosity and dedication. The issue will be debated in India between Hindu reactionaries led by representatives of the Sangh Parivar and Muslim conservatives mostly led by clerics. The debate in India is likely to run on predictable lines, with the Hindu reactionaries of the firm belief that violence, terror and intolerance are ingrained parts of Islam, and the Muslim conservatives ironically pleading for liberal pluralism without giving away their control of the community.b

But it is the Saudi government’s view of the issue that should be of greater interest. The conservative oil-rich country has been slowly moving away from a religion-based identity in the last few years, especially after the ascension of Sultan Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud in 2015. The ruling class in the kingdom, despite internal differences, seem to have realised that they have to move away from an oil-dependent economy. And that the diversification of the economy cannot happen unless other societal changes happen. For example, women’s rights, in the limited sense peculiar to the place, like driving cars without a male relative and owning businesses, became part of the change.

The ruling class seems to have realised that it has to be reformed from above to void revolution from below. That is why, in the last few years, Saudi society has been embracing fashion, film, and music with enthusiasm, which were anathema to the old puritanical order.

King Salman has named his son Mohammed bin Salman as the Crown Prince, who has proved to be controversial. He had held the plutocrats of the kingdom in a luxury hotel to browbeat them over their hidden wealth. And he is accused of being the man behind the killing of Saudi journalist and dissident Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018. But he is also the man pushing aggressively for turning the country into a tourist and business destination, on the lines of Dubai.

Doesn't Want to be Tied to Blinkered Wahhabism

The decision on Tablighi Jamaat has to be understood in this context. The charges made against the organisation are not true unless proved otherwise. The main concern of the Saudi rulers is the hold of Wahhabis. The Wahhabi ideology has been the driving force behind Islamic terrorism. There is no evidence as yet against the Jamaat of either being involved in terrorist activities or the desire to establish a universal Caliphate, as imagined by al Qaeda or Daesh. It is plausible that the move against the Jamaat is a signal to other religious groups – puritanical or otherwise – that they have no role to play in the politics of the country.

The ruling class is now motivated to become a purely economic and political power in the region. Saudi Arabia’s main rival, then, is Iran under the rule of Shiite ayatollahs. The contest between Iran and Saudi Arabia can be interpreted as one between the Sunni Saudis and Shiite Iranians. The Westerners led by the United States would like to drive a wedge between the two major Islamic divisions. But the Saudis and Iranians do not want to play the sectarian game.

Despite the ostensible rule of the ayatollahs through the House of Guardians and the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran remains relatively free and open to dealing with the rest of the world in terms of realpolitik. Saudi leaders must have felt the need for elbow room to play politics in the international arena without being tied to blinkered Wahhabism.

The Arabs are sophisticated players, an aspect that is overlooked by the West. They are as capable of playing a cunning hand as Iranians, Indians and Chinese.

In many ways, the Western world would find it hard to deal with the proverbial Orient as represented by these civilisations and cultures. The move against Tablighi Jamaat is a policy feint. Something else is on the horizon. It would be foolish to miss the point.

(The writer is a New Delhi-based political journalist. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)