[ShamilB]

Originally Posted by Kadhim

The scariest thing about Wahhabis is that, as seen in these photos above, when you embrace this ideology, your face literally melts off. If this isn't proof enough against this ideology, I don't know what is.

You need to crawl under a rock and stay there. You have nothing to add to this discussion board with your lame ass insults. If you don't like what is being said, then stay out of the thread. Simple as that.

Revert, I don't think the word "Tasawwuf" is used by Salafis as it is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah, rather they use the word "Ihsan".

[Kadhim]

Originally Posted by ShamilB

You need to crawl under a rock and stay there. You have nothing to add to this discussion board with your lame ass insults. If you don't like what is being said, then stay out of the thread. Simple as that.

If you don't like your demented ideas being put to critique, go live somewhere else. I'm not the one scratching out the faces of people in pictures out of a misguided notion that photography is haraam. If Wahhabis (and that's what they are, let's be honest and not put up with this "Salafi" disguise name) want to go around ranting and raving to anyone who will listen and even to anyone who doesn't want to listen about how everyone not like them is misguided, then I think it's fair game to nail them for their own ridiculous eccentricities.

Other nations are putting rockets into space, advancing in science. The key priorities of the Wahhabi Kingdom of Satanic Arabia? Whipping rape victims, persecuting Islamic spirituality, bulldozing the graves of the Prophet's (saws) family, and scratching the faces out on every photograph they can find. At this rate of progress, they should soon reach their goal of recreating the 7th century.

[Kadhim]

Originally Posted by talemul_haq

please leave the countries name alone: Saudi Arabia...that's all i ask, Makkah and Madainah are the closest thing to heaven here.

I understand your perspective to some extent, but my duty and desire to honor the haramayn does not imply in my mind any obligation to honor the wrongful guardians of these noble cities.

[exMember]

salaam

Originally Posted by AbuAlAbbas

I will say a true word after which no Muslim can argue after the truth appears to him.Firstly, the Salafee da'wah is an ascription to what? 'Salafee' is an ascription to the 'Salaf' (pious predecessors), so we have to know who the Salaf are and then what this ascription means and its importance as regards its meaning and implication.

So the Salafees attach themselves to the Salaf, and if we know the meaning of 'Salaf' and 'Salafee' then we should bear two things in mind.

By giving the definition of the actual word "salaf" you do not provide any help. I can be from amongst one of the deviant Shi'a groups or even a Qadiyani and refer to myself as "ahl ul-quran was-sunnah" etc etc, but does that mean i fit that definition? Obviously not.

Just because you gave yourself a label of "salaf" doesn't necessarily mean you are following their ways. Imam Abu Hanifah was a tabi', and amongst his students and colleagues who assisted him in compiling fiqh were also tabi'een, but you happen to reject their ways. Arent you then rejecting the salaf? Same applies to the other Imaams as well, who are also considered amongst the salaf. Technically, should not your title be "Un-Salafi"?

Originally Posted by AbuAlAbbas

That this attachment is not to a single person or persons, as is the case with other Jamaa'ahs present in the Muslim world. This is not an attachment to a person or even tens of people, but to that which will not err, since it is impossible that the Salaf would unite upon error,

You happen to be in error here, b/c although the fiqh schools have names that refer to a single person, they were not the ones who "laid down the law" in concrete. Imam Abu Hanifah had 40 OTHER ULAMA with him, all of whom were experts in various fields: hadith, tafseer, lughatul-Arabiyya, etc. Along with that, many knowledgeable students were in those gatherings as well, many of whom were either tabi'een or tabi-tabi'een. Abdullah bin Mubarak (ra), the Ameerul-Mumineen of hadith, was also part of the group of 40. All these people are considered salaf..... but, you happen to reject their ways.

Originally Posted by AbuAlAbbas

Sufism (tasawwuf) did not appear until after the first three generations which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) praised when he said, “The best of mankind is my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them…” (narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2652; Muslim, 2533; from the hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ood).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
With regard to the word soofiyyah (Sufism), it was not known during the first three generations, rather it became known after that.
Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 11/5

This tareeqah and its like are among the innovated ways that go against the Qur’aan and Sunnah and the way followed by the best generations. All the shaykhs of these tareeqahs have made up their own wirds (phrases to be uttered as dhikr), hizb (books of du’aa’ to be read daily by their followers) and ways of worship by which each of them may be distinguished from the others; this goes against sharee’ah and divides the ummah.

"As for the people of tasawwuf, they affirm the love (of Allah (swt)), and this is more evident among them than all other issues. The basis of their way (tariqa) is simply will and love." -Ibn Taymiyyah (ra)


The TERM "sufism" was not present, of course. But the science of tasawwuf was present. Allah (swt) states in the Qur'an that Nabi (s) was sent for tazkiyah (of the nafs) among other things. It "appeared" generations later b/c that is when it was codified. The further we got from the salaf, the more barakah we lost. There was blessing by just being in their presence, which is why sahabah (r) are sahabah just by being Muslim and looking at Nabi (s), similarly with the tabi'een looking at the sahabah and tabi-tabi'een looking at the tabi'een. But afterwards the noor was not so easily dissipated amongst others, so the science of tasawwuf was codified, just like how the science of Fiqh was codified. It's not as if Fiqh didnt exist... it was there, and the sahabah (r) amongst themselves followed the different methods of Nabi (s), but in the time of tabi'een it was codified (Imam Abu Hanifah ra), followed by the other Imaams (ra).

AllahuAlim.

[Revert]

Those fatwas were informative but didn't really answer my question.

[AbuAlAbbas]

Originally Posted by exMember

salaam

By giving the definition of the actual word "salaf" you do not provide any help. I can be from amongst one of the deviant Shi'a groups or even a Qadiyani and refer to myself as "ahl ul-quran was-sunnah" etc etc, but does that mean i fit that definition? Obviously not.

Just because you gave yourself a label of "salaf" doesn't necessarily mean you are following their ways. Imam Abu Hanifah was a tabi', and amongst his students and colleagues who assisted him in compiling fiqh were also tabi'een, but you happen to reject their ways. Arent you then rejecting the salaf? Same applies to the other Imaams as well, who are also considered amongst the salaf. Technically, should not your title be "Un-Salafi"?


You happen to be in error here, b/c although the fiqh schools have names that refer to a single person, they were not the ones who "laid down the law" in concrete. Imam Abu Hanifah had 40 OTHER ULAMA with him, all of whom were experts in various fields: hadith, tafseer, lughatul-Arabiyya, etc. Along with that, many knowledgeable students were in those gatherings as well, many of whom were either tabi'een or tabi-tabi'een. Abdullah bin Mubarak (ra), the Ameerul-Mumineen of hadith, was also part of the group of 40. All these people are considered salaf..... but, you happen to reject their ways.




"As for the people of tasawwuf, they affirm the love (of Allah (swt)), and this is more evident among them than all other issues. The basis of their way (tariqa) is simply will and love." -Ibn Taymiyyah (ra)


The TERM "sufism" was not present, of course. But the science of tasawwuf was present. Allah (swt) states in the Qur'an that Nabi (s) was sent for tazkiyah (of the nafs) among other things. It "appeared" generations later b/c that is when it was codified. The further we got from the salaf, the more barakah we lost. There was blessing by just being in their presence, which is why sahabah (r) are sahabah just by being Muslim and looking at Nabi (s), similarly with the tabi'een looking at the sahabah and tabi-tabi'een looking at the tabi'een. But afterwards the noor was not so easily dissipated amongst others, so the science of tasawwuf was codified, just like how the science of Fiqh was codified. It's not as if Fiqh didnt exist... it was there, and the sahabah (r) amongst themselves followed the different methods of Nabi (s), but in the time of tabi'een it was codified (Imam Abu Hanifah ra), followed by the other Imaams (ra).

AllahuAlim.

You have a misunderstanding when it comes to al dawaat al salafiyaah and their stance on madhabs. Al-Imam Abu Haneefah rahimhu Allah is a scholar that we follow, and he is a giant when it comes to scholars of al sunnah. The scholars of salafiyyah disagree in following a madhab blindly, just like abu haneefah stated that if a hadeeth is sahih that is my madhab. Bin uthaymeen for example was a hanbali, but he did not let the madhab blind him when it comes to the truth. The imams have stated that if a hadeeth is sahih then that is my madhab. The scholars warn about following madhabs blindly, and all four imams are scholars that we follow. If you want further proof listen to the lectures of Abdul aziz al rayyis, a member of the lajnat al ulema al kibar in saudia arabia, a student of bin baz, bin uthaymeen and fawzan, listen to his lectures in regards for fiqh and listen to how many times abu haneefah and the other scholars of the madhabs are mentioned for evidence.

Abu Haneefah (d. 150H) (rahimahullaah) said: "Adhere to the athar (narration) and the tareeqah (way) of the Salaf (Pious Predecessors) and beware of newly invented matters for all of it is innovation" [Reported by As-Suyootee in Sawn al Mantaq wal-Kalaam p.32]

and by the way that wasnt me writing the article is muhammad nasser al deen al albani rA

[AbuAlAbbas]

Originally Posted by Revert

Those fatwas were informative but didn't really answer my question.

The scholars that I mentioned hold the same views as those that you mentioned (bin taymeeyah and muhammad ibn abdul wahab) to the best of my knowledge. The majority of the tassawuf today is innovative, it starts with the aqeedah that is held by the majority of the sufis and thats the ashari aqeedah. inshAllah i'll try and find more translated works in regards to tassawuf.

[AbuAlAbbas]

aqeedah al-salafiyyah - Muhammad bin Saleh Al Uthaymeen

in 4 parts
YouTube - عقيدة السل�ية 00
YouTube - عقيدة السل�ية 01
YouTube - عقيدة السل�ية 02
YouTube - عقيدة السل�ية 03

[ShamilB]

Originally Posted by exMember

salaam

By giving the definition of the actual word "salaf" you do not provide any help. I can be from amongst one of the deviant Shi'a groups or even a Qadiyani and refer to myself as "ahl ul-quran was-sunnah" etc etc, but does that mean i fit that definition? Obviously not.

Just because you gave yourself a label of "salaf" doesn't necessarily mean you are following their ways. Imam Abu Hanifah was a tabi', and amongst his students and colleagues who assisted him in compiling fiqh were also tabi'een, but you happen to reject their ways. Arent you then rejecting the salaf? Same applies to the other Imaams as well, who are also considered amongst the salaf. Technically, should not your title be "Un-Salafi"?

It's a common mistake to say the "Salafis" reject the 4 Imams, their students, and many of the scholars of the past 1400 years, or that the "Salafis" reject the concept of madhabs or the following of madhabs. This is not true. I've read articles, literature, and even hung out with many who call themselves "Salafis" and most if not all follow a particular madhab and highly regard Tabi' such as Abu Hanifah and many of the scholars of the last 1400 years. The fiqh differences between "Salafis" and other Sunni groups have been overly-exaggerated by people with different agendas. The only issue I see is the degree of Taqleed (blind following) that can be used when following a scholar or school of thought. Also, the "Salafis" don't restrict themselves to four madhabs (correct me if I'm wrong AbuAbbas). If you are a layperson you are highly encouraged to follow a madhab or a scholar you deem trustworthy and who has reached a level of ijtihad so that he can deduce and derive rulings. Personally, I think the bigger issue is aqeedah but again this has become a very contentious issue amongst the laypeople when it should be debated amongst the scholars with respect, humility, and sincerity, and this is something that they have shown in the last 1400 years. May Allah (SWT) guide us all to the straight path.

[m_ali_qazi]

Originally Posted by Kadhim

If you don't like your demented ideas being put to critique, go live somewhere else. I'm not the one scratching out the faces of people in pictures out of a misguided notion that photography is haraam.

Shaykh Nuh Ha Meem Keller doesnt have his pictures taken and doesnt get his lectures recorded on video because he believes its haram.

And he's far from being a wahabi and he's very critical of salafis.

[riad19]

i think the salafi movement is made up of scholars who have good command over religious affairs and sound and sincere brothers and sisters. but the movement is obviously a minority in the grand scheme of things, and follow a lot of minority opinions that aren't supported by majority of the scholars over the past thousand years. nowadays the salafi movement gets a lot of attention in religious conversations and circles, due to the saudi backing and saudi funding of all books salafi.

regardless, differences between salafis and mainstream ahle sunnah wal jam'ah is that of a ideology, resulting in differences in fiqh and some differences in aqeedah as well. When it comes to the actual implementation of religious practices, the difference between a hanafi and a salafi isnt any more than the difference between a hanafi and a shafi'e. But theoretically speaking, hanafis, shafi'es, malikis, and hambalis are different from salafis in a big way. Let me give you and example - when it comes to taraweeh, hanafis normally pray 20. There are shafi'e scholars who say that you have to pray 8 so a lot of shafi'e brothers and sister pray 8 and not 20. The salafis also say, that u have to pray 8. So as far as the visible difference is concerned, in this case, the shafi'es and the salafis don't really have a difference. They will quote the same hadith to support their arguments, have the same criticisms of the opposing ahadith. But theoretically, a shafi'e scholars reaching the conclusion of praying 8 rakaats is very different from a salafi scholar doing ijtehad and coming to the same conclusion.

you might be saying, how can it be different if both shafi'es and salafis use the same ahadith and come to the same conclusion? The reason there is a difference is because, the schools of thought derive a particular ruling based on a collection of pre-determined principles which are derived from Quran and sunnah. But salafis dont have a static set of principles or usuls, hence a lot of the time their opinions aren't consistent in a broader sense.

i might be able to explain it better to people who did computer science or software engineering in school. if you ever took theories of programming languages, you'd know that programming languages are designed with a fundamental programming style in mind to provide solutions to formulated problems. For example, you have class based programming, pipeline programming (unix), logic programming (like prolog), procedural programming (asp, fortran, matlab), and the most famous, object oriented programming (c, c++). Now, the schools of thought adopt a set of principles, much like, determining whether you want to develop your language to be object oriented, class oriented, procedural, etc. For arguments sake, lets make Hanafi school as procedural, and shafi'e school as the object oriented. So keeping the procedural programming concepts in mind, different companies came up with ASP, Matlab, etc. Same way, kepping OOP concepts in mind, one can develop Java, C, C++ etc. In a religious sense, within the hanafi madhab, you'll find scholars who prefer different rulings, like Imam Abu Yusuf (Abu Hanifa's student) often disagreed with Imam Abu Hanifah on different issues. Same thing in the shafi'e madhab.

now what if some company came up today, who didnt know the fundamental styles these programming languages were based on, and said, guess what, i like certan things in asp, some in java, some in matlab so i will combine all of these into one language. In a technological sense, it would be stupid, in a religious sense, you just cherry picked what you thought was the best opinion, without understanding the detailed framework an opinion is based on. So salafism is just that. It doesnt take into consideration the complex set of usuls each school of thought abides by to derive different rulings. Salafis go straight to hadith, and try to derive rulings based on face value.

Thats why you'll see salafis say, "well, Imam Abu Hanifah said 'if you find a sahih hadith then thats my madhab.'" Well that sounds pretty conclusive to a person who has no knowledge of madhahib or fiqn, and ignorant people will say, yeah we must follow the hadith over the opinon of some imam because the prophet (s) word is the last. But what people dont realize is that this statement is completely out of context, and each hadith has to be compared to all ahadith and quran in order to understand that hadith in a detailed manner. And then one will be able to understand how the ruling from this hadith can be derived.

the salafi opinion of taking directly from hadith had been there from centuries. During the time of the 4 imams, these people were known as ahle hadith, or people of hadith. Again, most scholars rejected their opinion of taking rulings directly from hadith without a framework, because it lead to many inconsistent rulings. So Ahle-Hadith were a minority then and their modern day reincarnation, the salafi movement will also be minority now. Because to a person who studies the natural evolution of fiqh, following a madhab makes a lot more sense.

[ShamilB]

Originally Posted by m_ali_qazi

Shaykh Nuh Ha Meem Keller doesnt have his pictures taken and doesnt get his lectures recorded on video because he believes its haram.

And he's far from being a wahabi and he's very critical of salafis.

There are many Sunni scholars who are of the opinion that photography is haram. As usual, Kadhim doesn't know what he is talking about and is just blinded by hate. The following hadith supports this opinion:

'Abdullaah ibn Mas'ood (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (SAW) said: "Those who will be most severely punished by Allaah on the Day of Resurrection will be the image-makers." (Reported by al-Bukhaari, see al-Fath, 10/382
Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (SAW) said: "Allaah, may He be exalted, says: 'Who does more wrong than the one who tries to create something like My creation? Let him create a grain of wheat or a kernel of corn.'" (Reported by al-Bukhaari, see Fath al-Baari, 10/385).

'Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: "Shall I not send you on the same mission as the Messenger of Allah (SAW) sent me? Do not leave any built-up tomb without levelling it, and do not leave any picture in any house without erasing it." (Reported by Muslim and al-Nisaa'i; this is the version narrated by al-Nisaa'i).

Ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) reported that the Prophet (SAW) said: "Every image-maker will be in the Fire, and for every image that he made a soul will be created for him, which will be punished in the Fire." Ibn 'Abbaas said: "If you must do that, make pictures of trees and other inanimate objects." (Reported by Muslim, 3/1871."

[ShamilB]

Originally Posted by riad19

i think the salafi movement is made up of scholars who have good command over religious affairs and sound and sincere brothers and sisters. but the movement is obviously a minority in the grand scheme of things, and follow a lot of minority opinions that aren't supported by majority of the scholars over the past thousand years. nowadays the salafi movement gets a lot of attention in religious conversations and circles, due to the saudi backing and saudi funding of all books salafi.

regardless, differences between salafis and mainstream ahle sunnah wal jam'ah is that of a ideology, resulting in differences in fiqh and some differences in aqeedah as well. When it comes to the actual implementation of religious practices, the difference between a hanafi and a salafi isnt any more than the difference between a hanafi and a shafi'e. But theoretically speaking, hanafis, shafi'es, malikis, and hambalis are different from salafis in a big way. Let me give you and example - when it comes to taraweeh, hanafis normally pray 20. There are shafi'e scholars who say that you have to pray 8 so a lot of shafi'e brothers and sister pray 8 and not 20. The salafis also say, that u have to pray 8. So as far as the visible difference is concerned, in this case, the shafi'es and the salafis don't really have a difference. They will quote the same hadith to support their arguments, have the same criticisms of the opposing ahadith. But theoretically, a shafi'e scholars reaching the conclusion of praying 8 rakaats is very different from a salafi scholar doing ijtehad and coming to the same conclusion.

you might be saying, how can it be different if both shafi'es and salafis use the same ahadith and come to the same conclusion? The reason there is a difference is because, the schools of thought derive a particular ruling based on a collection of pre-determined principles which are derived from Quran and sunnah. But salafis dont have a static set of principles or usuls, hence a lot of the time their opinions aren't consistent in a broader sense.

i might be able to explain it better to people who did computer science or software engineering in school. if you ever took theories of programming languages, you'd know that programming languages are designed with a fundamental programming style in mind to provide solutions to formulated problems. For example, you have class based programming, pipeline programming (unix), logic programming (like prolog), procedural programming (asp, fortran, matlab), and the most famous, object oriented programming (c, c++). Now, the schools of thought adopt a set of principles, much like, determining whether you want to develop your language to be object oriented, class oriented, procedural, etc. For arguments sake, lets make Hanafi school as procedural, and shafi'e school as the object oriented. So keeping the procedural programming concepts in mind, different companies came up with ASP, Matlab, etc. Same way, kepping OOP concepts in mind, one can develop Java, C, C++ etc. In a religious sense, within the hanafi madhab, you'll find scholars who prefer different rulings, like Imam Abu Yusuf (Abu Hanifa's student) often disagreed with Imam Abu Hanifah on different issues. Same thing in the shafi'e madhab.

now what if some company came up today, who didnt know the fundamental styles these programming languages were based on, and said, guess what, i like certan things in asp, some in java, some in matlab so i will combine all of these into one language. In a technological sense, it would be stupid, in a religious sense, you just cherry picked what you thought was the best opinion, without understanding the detailed framework an opinion is based on. So salafism is just that. It doesnt take into consideration the complex set of usuls each school of thought abides by to derive different rulings. Salafis go straight to hadith, and try to derive rulings based on face value.

Thats why you'll see salafis say, "well, Imam Abu Hanifah said 'if you find a sahih hadith then thats my madhab.'" Well that sounds pretty conclusive to a person who has no knowledge of madhahib or fiqn, and ignorant people will say, yeah we must follow the hadith over the opinon of some imam because the prophet (s) word is the last. But what people dont realize is that this statement is completely out of context, and each hadith has to be compared to all ahadith and quran in order to understand that hadith in a detailed manner. And then one will be able to understand how the ruling from this hadith can be derived.

the salafi opinion of taking directly from hadith had been there from centuries. During the time of the 4 imams, these people were known as ahle hadith, or people of hadith. Again, most scholars rejected their opinion of taking rulings directly from hadith without a framework, because it lead to many inconsistent rulings. So Ahle-Hadith were a minority then and their modern day reincarnation, the salafi movement will also be minority now. Because to a person who studies the natural evolution of fiqh, following a madhab makes a lot more sense.

That would be true if many Salafis didn't follow a particular madhab - you could essentially call them Ahlul Hadith. But the fact of the matter is a good percentage of them (majority in my opinion) follow a madhab. How do they get classified? Are they part-Salafi, part Hanbali? AlMaghrib Institute for instance is what you would call a "Salafi" Institue. But they follow the Shafi' school of thought in fiqh. I think some of us get too caught up in labels and don't address the bigger issues facing this Ummah - rise of modernism, Quraniyoon (Quran-only followers), and other extreme deviant groups that in my opinion are more of a threat to the Ummah than who is following a madhab or not.