[AbuAlAbbas]

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.

your statements are full of holes.

Firstly the salafis believes its okay to do both 8 or 20 rakats for taraweeh. Here is the proof.

Question:
What is narrated from ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) is that he ordered that Taraweeh prayer should be twenty rak’ahs. Is that saheeh or da’eef? Or is there no basis for it?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.


Firstly:

The report that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab ordered that Taraweeh prayer should be twenty rak’ahs came from four of the Taabi’een. These are their reports:

1 – It was narrated that Saa’ib ibn Yazeed said: ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) gathered the people together in Ramadaan to be led by Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Tameem al-Daari in praying twenty-one rak’ahs, and they used to recite hundreds of verses, and they dispersed before dawn broke.

A number of narrators narrated it from al-Saa’ib, some of whom mentioned twenty rak’ahs or twenty-one or twenty-three. They were:

Muhammad ibn Yoosuf, the son of the sister of al-Saa’ib, from al-Saa’ib, as was narrated by ‘Abd al-Razzaaq in al-Musannaf (4/260) from the report of Dawood ibn Qays and others.

Yazeed ibn Khusayfah. This was narrated by Ibn al-Majd in al-Musnad (1/413), and via him by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan (2/496).

Al-Haarith ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Abi Dhubaab. This was narrated by ‘Abd al-Razzaaq in al-Musannaf (4/261).

These reports are saheeh reports narrated by trustworthy narrators from al-Saa’ib ibn Yazeed. They mention twenty rak’ahs at the time of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him). The extra amount mentioned – twenty-one or twenty-three, refers to Taraweeh plus Witr.

[AbuAlAbbas]

2 – It was narrated that Yazeed ibn Rumaan said: At the time of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab the people used to pray twenty-three rak’ahs of qiyaam in Ramadaan.

This was narrated from him by Maalik in al-Muwatta’ (1/115). Al-Nawawi said in al-Majmoo’ (4/33: It is mursal, because Yazeed ibn Rumaan did not live at the same time as ‘Umar. End quote.

3 – It was narrated from Yahya ibn Sa’eed al-Qattaan that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) ordered a man to lead them in twenty rak’ahs of prayer. This was narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in al-Musannaaf (2/163) from Wakee’ from Maalik. But Yahya ibn Sa’eed did not live at the same time as ‘Umar.

4 – It was narrated that ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Rafee’ said: Ubayy ibn Ka’b used to lead the people in praying twenty rak’ahs during Ramadaan in Madeenah, and he would pray Witr with three rak’ahs.

This was narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in al-Musannaf (2/163).
From all these reports it is clear that twenty rak’ahs was the way that Taraweeh was usually done at the time of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him). A matter such as Taraweeh prayer is something that is well known among all people, and is transmitted from one generation to another. The report of Yazeed ibn Rumaan and Yahya al-Qattaan is to be taken into account even if they did not live at the same time as ‘Umar, because undoubtedly they learned it from a number of people who had been alive at the time of ‘Umar, and this is something that does not need and isnaad, rather all the people of Madeenah are its isnaad.

Imam al-Tirmidhi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Sunan (3/169):
Most of the scholars are of the view that what is narrated from ‘Umar, ‘Ali and other companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is twenty rak’ahs. This is the view of al-Thawri, Ibn al-Mubaarak and al-Shaafa’i.

Al-Shaafa’i said: This is what I learned in our land, in Makkah they pray twenty rak’ahs.
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said in al-Istidhkaar (2/69):

Twenty rak’ahs was narrated from ‘Ali, Shateer ibn Shakl, Ibn Abi Mulaykah, al-Haarith al-Hamadaani and Abu’l-Bakhtari. It is the view of the majority of scholars and it is the view of the Kufis, the Shaafa’is and most of the fuqaha’. It was narrated in saheeh reports from Ubayy ibn Ka’b, and there was no difference of opinion among the Sahaabah. ‘Ata’ said: I grew up at a time when the people prayed twenty-three rak’ahs including Witr.
See that in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (2/163).

Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (23/112):
It is proven that Ubayy ibn Ka’b used to lead the people in praying twenty rak’ahs in qiyaam in Ramadaan, and he used to pray Witr with three rak’ahs. Many scholars think that this is the Sunnah, because he established that among the Muhaajireen and Ansaar and no one objected to that. Others regarded it as mustahabb to pray thirty-nine rak’ahs, based on the fact that this was the practice of the people of Madeenah in the past. End quote.

With regard to what it says in the report of Imam Maalik, Yahya al-Qattaan and others from Muhammad ibn Yoosuf from al-Saa’ib ibn Yazeed in al-Muwatta’ (1/115) and in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (2/162) “eleven rak’ahs” – this is to be understood as referring to what was done at first, then it was reduced after that, then ‘Umar increased the number to twenty to make the recitation in qiyaam easier for the people.

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said in al-Istidhkaar (2/68):
It may be understood as meaning that at first qiyaam at the time of ‘Umar was eleven rak’ahs, then he reduced the length of qiyaam for them and made it twenty-one rak’ahs, to make the recitation lighter for them and so that they would bow and prostrate more. But it seems most likely to me that the report about eleven rak’ahs is a mistake. And Allaah knows best. End quote.

Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (23/113):
When Ubayy ibn Ka’b led them in praying qiyaam in a single congregation, he could not make them stand for too long, so he increased the number of rak’ahs to make up for the long standing. So they doubled the number of rak’ahs. He used to pray eleven or thirteen rak’ahs of qiyaam al-layl, then it seems that after that the people of Madeenah found it difficult to stand for so long during the recitation, so they increased the number of rak’ahs until it reached thirty-nine. End quote.

Secondly:
Night prayers are broad in scope, and there is no set number. Whoever wants to pray eleven rak’ahs may do so, and whoever wants to pray more or less than that may do so. The same applies to Taraweeh prayers in Ramadaan.

Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (23/113):
One group said that it is proven in al-Saheeh from ‘Aa’ishah that the Prophet did not pray more than thirteen rak’ahs in Ramadaan or at any other time, and some people were uncertain about this report, because they thought that it contradicted the saheeh hadeeth and because of the practice of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and the actions of the Muslims.

But the correct view is that all of that is good, as was stated by Imam Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy on him). There is no set number of rak’ahs for qiyaam during Ramadaan, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not set a number. End quote.

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (11/322):
It is proven that ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) told the one whom he appointed among the Sahaabah to pray eleven rak’ahs, and it is proven that they prayed twenty-three rak’ahs based on his command. This indicates that the matter is broad in scope and that the matter was flexible according to the Sahaabah. That is also indicated by the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “The night prayers are two by two.” End quote.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam QA

[riad19]

Originally Posted by ShamilB

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.

i have nothing but good will towards the Almaghrib institute and the scholars who run it. They are all very knowledgeable mashallah. But you are confused regarding what they follow. The scholars dont follow a particular madhab. However, the almaghrib institute have adopted the shafi'e madhab as the main madhab to be taught in its classes. Next time you are with Sheikh Yasir birjas or Sheikh Muhammad, ask them which madhab they follow.

Originally Posted by m_ali_qazi

fortran is obselete, C++ is an innovation in C and Matlab is for literalists.

you're a literalist arent you, damn you ahle-Matlab!

lol believe it not, we still have some systems that run fortran here in verizon.

[riad19]

Originally Posted by AbuAlAbbas

your statements are full of holes.

Firstly the salafis believes its okay to do both 8 or 20 rakats for taraweeh. Here is the proof.

salaams bro, i dont think my argument is full of whole. If you read my above post, you'll know that my argument was about the method used to derive rulings, and not the rulings itself. There are salafis who may pray 20 just like there are hanafis who may pray 8. (Though most salafi scholars support praying of 8). But my problem with the ruling wasnt the end result, rather the process.

My argument will have holes if you can prove to me that all salafis use a agreed upon set of usuls or principles as guidelines for deriving rulings

But i'd like to clarify, i am not saying that salafis are deviant and misguided. I think the salafi scholars are very sincere mashallah. But i do disagree with them on this issue. Will Allah ask us about the methodology regarding the derivation of fiqh? Allahu Alam. But i wouldnt want to stand before Him (azza wa jall) with intellectual inconsistency in all my religious affairs.

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by m_ali_qazi

fortran is obselete, C++ is an innovation in C and Matlab is for literalists.

you're a literalist arent you, damn you ahle-Matlab!

fortran is not obsolete. It's the main code for computational chemistry programs. Sure, there are developements for CCA, but it's still mostly fortran.

[ShamilB]

Originally Posted by riad19

i have nothing but good will towards the Almaghrib institute and the scholars who run it. They are all very knowledgeable mashallah. But you are confused regarding what they follow. The scholars dont follow a particular madhab. However, the almaghrib institute have adopted the shafi'e madhab as the main madhab to be taught in its classes. Next time you are with Sheikh Yasir birjas or Sheikh Muhammad, ask them which madhab they follow.

Again, the issue here is whether all Salafis can be classified as Ahlel Hadith or simply as followers of a madhab. My point is many (if not the majority) of them follow a school of thought. In fact, in one of the fiqh classes at AlMaghrib, a question was posed "should we follow a madhab?". The answer was that you are highly recommended to follow a madhab if you have not reached the level in which ijtihaad can be performed. Either that or follow a trustworthy scholar who has reached this level. To me this makes more sense than making it obligatory upon people to follow a madhab. The only thing that you should be required to follow are the Quran and the Sunnah. And to answer your question, I believe both Shaykh Muhammad and Shaykh Yasir Birjas are Shafi's in fiqh.

[riad19]

Originally Posted by ShamilB

Again, the issue here is whether all Salafis can be classified as Ahlel Hadith or simply as followers of a madhab. My point is many (if not the majority) of them follow a school of thought. In fact, in one of the fiqh classes at AlMaghrib, a question was posed "should we follow a madhab?". The answer was that you are highly recommended to follow a madhab if you have not reached the level in which ijtihaad can be performed. Either that or follow a trustworthy scholar who has reached this level. To me this makes more sense than making it obligatory on people to follow a madhab. The only thing that you should be required to follow are the Quran and the Sunnah. And to answer your question, I believe both Shaykh Muhammad and Shaykh Yasir Birjas are Shafi's in fiqh.

lets talk over pm

[AbuAlAbbas]

Also, when it comes to hadiths and interpretation, if there is ikhtilaf between the ulema (examlpe something in fiqh between the four imams) then there is no harm in following either opinion unless there is clear decisive evidence that maybe one imam did not know then you should follow the correct opinion, in either case you should follow the strongest opinion.

And you make a distinction between the four imams and ahlul hadeeth, when they are one. They derived their rulings from ahadeeth under their own ijtihad. And i have heard many modern day salafi scholars refer that it is best to follow the ijtihad of the salaf and the scholars of earlier ages (4 imams, al thawree, al lalakaee, al-basree etc...) than that of the scholars of today. The issue is blindly following a madhab, following a ruling that is known for a madhab (most times wasnt made by one of the four imams or their students but generations later) when there is a hadeeth that is classified as sahih that goes against the ruling. Most salafis follow a madhab, but they dont restrict themselves to one madhab because people are not infallible, they make mistakes and we should not follow their mistakes.

And like brother ShamilB stated, the bigger problem is the deviant sects, the aqeedahs of these people. The aqeedah of the four imams was that of the salaf. So it doesnt matter what madhab you follow etc... as long as the aqeedah is correct, thats the most important part, the aqeedah is what makes you ahlul sunnah or ahlul biddah, it is what distinguishes the save group from those who arent. Because when theres ikhtilaf on issues between the scholars of ahlul sunnah then the subject is broad and for the most part there is no clear cut right or wrong stance. The main problem today is the aqeedah of the people.

And in regards to photography, like i mentioned in the previous paragraph about ikhtilaf, there is ikhtilaf on this issue between the salafi scholars of today. So the subject is broad and the scholars agree to disagree. Al-albani didnt allow it. Bin baz for instance did not allow any pictures of video of him to be taken earlier in his life, but before his death he didnt forbid it, he started allowing taped lectures of him etc... There is a video of bin uthaymeen answering a question on whether photography is haram, and he says he see no problem in it and explains his decision and why he thinks its ok. Sheikh fawzan has passed fatwas saying its haram, but he even stopped having this opinion as one of his students has said that lately he has allowed photography and video of his lectures and sometimes he doesnt allow it. Infact here is a video of his student Abdul azziz al rayyis about to give a lecture when someone from the crowd gets up and starts telling the shaykh that its haraam to have this lecture videotaped and so the sheikh (very politley) and the man who disrupted the lecture have a conversation infront of everyone.

YouTube - Holding on to the Sunnah-Abdul Aziz Al Rayyis-DUBAI-UAE-Pt 1

But the scholars who allowed it, allow it in certain circumstances, that does not constitute haram.

[ShamilB]

Originally Posted by riad19

lets talk over pm

Sounds like a plan.

[riad19]

Originally Posted by AbuAlAbbas

Also, when it comes to hadiths and interpretation, if there is ikhtilaf between the ulema (examlpe something in fiqh between the four imams) then there is no harm in following either opinion unless there is clear decisive evidence that maybe one imam did not know then you should follow the correct opinion, in either case you should follow the strongest opinion.

jazaks for stating that, that is the exact statement i have a problem with. let me explain why - to summarize what u said, a person should follow the strongest opinion if there is a clear and decisive evidence that one of the imams did not know of a certain hadith or ruling. The reason why I have a problem with that statement is that, if an imam didnt know of a certain ruling, you'll have scholars from the same madhab who will have difference of opinion with him and the scholars of the madhab automatically adopts the stronger opinion, within the madhab's usuls.

so if a person disgree with imam abu hanifah on amount of rakaat for taraweeh, he doesnt have to follow imam shafi'e because he will most like find other opinions within the hanafi madhab itself.

my problem isnt following what you find to be the strongest, my problem is foillowing one opinion of imam abu hanifah which is based on a certain principle, and then jumping across to other set of principles set by imam malik to follow another opinion which you might find strong. in that case you are contradicting yourself.

if someone says you can jump between opinions of the 4 imams to find the strongest, that you know that person hasnt got a clue of how the madhahibs are setup to begin with.

Originally Posted by AbuAlAbbas

And you make a distinction between the four imams and ahlul hadeeth, when they are one. They derived their rulings from ahadeeth under their own ijtihad. And i have heard many modern day salafi scholars refer that it is best to follow the ijtihad of the salaf and the scholars of earlier ages (4 imams, al thawree, al lalakaee, al-basree etc...) than that of the scholars of today. The issue is blindly following a madhab, following a ruling that is known for a madhab (most times wasnt made by one of the four imams or their students but generations later) when there is a hadeeth that is classified as sahih that goes against the ruling.

four imams and ahle hadith are very different, every scholar derives the rulings from ahadith because quran and hadith are our two main sources of law, but the procedure the 4 imams use vs the procedure used by ahle hadith are very different. like i said earlier, the madhahibs are based on usuls which make the rulings more consistent, ahle hadith dont have that which makes some, not all rulings inconsistent.

Originally Posted by AbuAlAbbas

Most salafis follow a madhab, but they dont restrict themselves to one madhab because people are not infallible, they make mistakes and we should not follow their mistakes.

bro i think u are still misunderstanding what i am trying to say. i am not telling the salafis to follow a madhab, i am saying to follow a standard code of principles. i know shcolars can make mistake, if they do, you have room for other opinions within the same code of principles. thats why imam abu hanifah can disagree with imam abu yusuf and they can both be from the hanafi madhab. salafis make the mistake of not having a set of usul, the end opinion can always differ.

Originally Posted by AbuAlAbbas

And like brother ShamilB stated, the bigger problem is the deviant sects, the aqeedahs of these people. The aqeedah of the four imams was that of the salaf. So it doesnt matter what madhab you follow etc... as long as the aqeedah is correct, thats the most important part, the aqeedah is what makes you ahlul sunnah or ahlul biddah, it is what distinguishes the save group from those who arent. Because when theres ikhtilaf on issues between the scholars of ahlul sunnah then the subject is broad and for the most part there is no clear cut right or wrong stance. The main problem today is the aqeedah of the people.

i agree, like i said above i have respect for salafi scholars, and i dont think anyone can say that they are deviant. but i do disagree on some aqeedah issues with some salafi scholars who prefer a much more literal understanding of some aspects of aqeedah. but thats another conversation.

Originally Posted by AbuAlAbbas

And in regards to photography, like i mentioned in the previous paragraph about ikhtilaf, there is ikhtilaf on this issue between the salafi scholars of today. So the subject is broad and the scholars agree to disagree. Al-albani didnt allow it. Bin baz for instance did not allow any pictures of video of him to be taken earlier in his life, but before his death he didnt forbid it, he started allowing taped lectures of him etc... There is a video of bin uthaymeen answering a question on whether photography is haram, and he says he see no problem in it and explains his decision and why he thinks its ok. Sheikh fawzan has passed fatwas saying its haram, but he even stopped having this opinion as one of his students has said that lately he has allowed photography and video of his lectures and sometimes he doesnt allow it. Infact here is a video of his student Abdul azziz al rayyis about to give a lecture when someone from the crowd gets up and starts telling the shaykh that its haraam to have this lecture videotaped and so the sheikh (very politley) and the man who disrupted the lecture have a conversation infront of everyone.

YouTube - Holding on to the Sunnah-Abdul Aziz Al Rayyis-DUBAI-UAE-Pt 1

But the scholars who allowed it, allow it in certain circumstances, that does not constitute haram.

photography and videos are a new issue thats unprecedented in its own way. i toally respect Sheikh Bin baaz's take on the issue, as well as Sheikh uthaymeen. They are scholars of their own right and i have no problem with their ijtehad.

[exMember]

salaam

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.

Majority of the Ulama, at least the Ahnaaf, consider pictures of living things to be haraam, whether drawn or photographed. Of course there are exceptions though, i.e. for IDs &
education. The legit ikhtilaaf is in the validity of pics on screens. Many Ulama say pics on screens (TV, PC, etc) are allowed, and those Ulama not of that opinion still hold that opinion to be a legitimately solid one. One of my teachers doesnt take pics at all, but when we found a pic of him online that someone took (w/o him knowing), he said to let it be since they may follow the other opinion.

AllahuAlim.

[exMember]

salaam

First, id like to point out one thing. The Salafis dont seem to have a framework, in the sense that ive heard Salafis themselves say that alMaghrib is soft-Salafi. Other knowledgeable and practicing salafis ive come across dont like alMaghrib's approach. Ive heard these same people speak ill of the 4 Imaams, especially Imaam Abu Hanifah. These types of salafis are usually those that claim taqleed of the Imaams and scholars of the madhaahib are incorrect yet they dont seem to realize that they ar