Saudi reshuffle: Good or bad?

While I do not have any comments - in fact I hope for good Insha Allah - for the changes made in the offices of education, health, the Shoura Council and the Hai'a (Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, also known as Mutawwa or Religious Police), I do have few things to say about the change in the Council of Senior Ulema (Islamic Scholars).

International media, including that of Saudi Arabia's, are hailing the move of bringing in scholars of all Madhhabs (i.e. from all Sunni schools of thought) saying it will undercut or reduce the "hardline" Salafi dominance. Analysts are saying diverse and different opinions of all schools of thought will make religious laws and interpretation more moderate, giving room to different opinions.

On the face of it, the argument looks perfect and true. However, it is not so. The difference between Salafi method of approach and other schools of thought is: all schools of thought e.g. Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'ee and Hanbali, stick to the view of their own school of thought. Meaning they do not have a broad view to accept other valid opinions. They do not consider looking into different schools of thought for analysis and coming to a conclusion as to which view is more closer to the truth or more closer to what is right.

As for Salafi scholars, this is their identification. The reason why some schools of thought despise them is because they do not make it obligatory to follow one particular school of thought and because they do not stick to one Madhhab. In fact, one of the greates challenges Salafi scholars face is to defend and explain why its not necessary to stick to one school of thought.

As an example, let me quote King Abdul Aziz, the founder of Saudi Arabia, who said in a speech in Makkah:

"They call us 'Wahhabis' and they call our Madhhab 'Wahhabi' with the idea that it is a distinct Madhdab. This is incorrect and it emerged from false propaganda which is spread by the biased people with personal interests, for we are not people of a new madhdab or a new creed.
Muhammad Ibn AbdulWahhaab did not come with anything new for our 'aqeedah is the 'aqeedah of the Salaf us-Saalih which is transmitted in the Book of Allaah, the Sunnah of His Messenger and what the Salaf us-Saalih followed."
He further said, "There is not a madhdhab like the madhdhab of the Salaf us-Saalih and we do not support one particular madhdhab over another, for Aboo Haneefah, Maalik, ash-Shaafi'ee and Ibn Hanbal are all our Imaams." (Al-Wajeez fee Seerati'l-Malik 'Abdil'Azeez, p.217)

There are numerous examples of Salafi scholars, including those in Saudi Arabia like Ibn Baaz and Ibn 'Uthaymeen, not favoring any particular school of thought in their verdicts. They have Insha Allah tried to their ability to arrive at the conclusion closest to the truth.

So the whole argument to bring in different opinions goes invalid because these scholars already look into different opinions. Yea, if the reason is to bring in people who will compromise and give verdicts according to what people - or the West - want, and not necessarily what Islam wants, then that's a different story. But again as a general rule, I keep a good opinion that this move was with the intention to tackle some of the genuine problems of Saudi Arabia. However, I don't know how far this move, with respect to the Council of Senior Scholars, is right or will yield good results. An Islamic senior scholar, with clear and good understanding of all these issues and who doesn't hesitate to speak the truth, can only clarify Insha Allah.