DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Difference Between Being A Wahhabi and A Salafi

**BalaGire** · 02-05-2011, 07:37 AM

Well, that is one way to put it. Another way to put it is that the Salafis, or pseudo-salafis as I like to call them, are simpletons who do not understand why there are differences in our ummah. They reject the opinions of the salaf (which is why they are not true salafis), such as the sahaba, tabi'in, and the mujtahid imams. They attempt to do ijtihad for themselves, even on issues that were deemed closed, such as touching the Quran without wudu, doing masah on normal socks, etc. And yes, they are the worst type of blind followers, since they follow their scholars such as Albani, with diehard fanaticism that you will not find in muqallids when following their maddhabs.

Salafi is a very broad term, which means different things to different people. I myself classify someone a salafi (or pseudo-salafi) if they reject a maddhab and reject the aqidah of ahlus sunnah wal jam'ah (i.e. Ash'ari/Maturidi). By such a definition, Wahhabi and Salafi is the same.

For some people, however, they trace the historical origins of salafism, from the time of Ibn Taymiyyah to Shawkani. Historically, two groups arose--the Ahl al Hadith of India, and a group in Najd under the leadership of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. Ibn Abdul Wahhab was more interested in issues of aqa'id than fiqh, whereas the Ahl al Hadith of India were more interested in debunking the Hanafis in matters of fiqh. (As a result of the need to respond to the Ahl al Hadith of India, some of the Deobandi's greatest works, such as I'laa As Sunan were produced). Both have evolved somewhat. Albani came around somewhat later, and shifted the Najdi group to a more fiqh based approach, though they still focus heavily on aqidah, and criticizing the Ash'aris/Maturidis. The Ahl al Hadith of India were also affected by the Najdis, and began to focus more on aqidah as well, though fiqh is still their main focus.

So historically, the Wahhabis were only the group who following Ibn Abdul wahhab. However, because of the evolution of the two groups, it is difficult to differentiate them anymore. In addition, many people use the term derogatorily for all salafis.

One difference that is sometimes mentioned is that the Wahhabis follow the Hanbali maddhab, and therefore are not opposed to following maddhabs, whereas the Ahl al Hadith of India are. That may have been the truth of Ibn Abdul Wahhab and his immediate followers, but is not true today. The Najdi Wahhabis reject following of maddhabs, considering it a bid'ah, derogatorily coining it "blind following." Many of their works show that they reject maddhabs, and their positions are not in accordance with the Hanbali maddhab.

The brother was asking about the difference between salafi and wahabi so i tried to cover the issue in a sort of blanket statement without going into the merits/demerits of salafis.Indeed everyone sect his own diffintion of Ahle sunnah wal jamaa'.As everyone has his own truth and will be questioned for that truth on the Judgment day.
I agree with the last part of your post but i would add that the hanbali school always had the perfect tendencies to evolve into salafi school.The arabs were mostly hanbalis and Imam Mohamad bin Abdul wahab Ra did not have to work against hanfiyat or any other school much. However, the Ahle hadith of indian subcontinent emerged into a different environment.They faced staunch hnafiyat around them in the end of 18th century unlike Mohamad bin Abdul wahab ra.So they reacted a bit more harshly towards and sat on the seat of pure ghair muqaladism to refute the staunch muqalids.
It would be interesting to note that Sanaullah Amrathsari ra , a prominent indian salafi, criticized Imam Mohamad Bin Abdul Wahab ra for his lenient aproach towards taqleed whose primary focus was on aqeedah.
Even if you look at the books which were translated in that era ,only those books were translated into urdu by the ahle hadiths which could be used to refute taqleed.like , only those parts of the 35 volumes of Tareekh e baghdad were translated which had the criticism of Imam Abu hanifa ra.
Still u can't find the major work shaikh ul Islam Ibn taymiyya ra in urdu.Shams ud din Afghani wrote a 3 volumes book "Al maturedeya" to refute the maturidi Aqeedah and even that has not been translated into urdu. The arab salafis have criticized this attitude and aproach of ahle hadiths of india off and on.

02-05-2011, 07:37 AM	#32
BalaGire Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 452 Senior Member	Well, that is one way to put it. Another way to put it is that the Salafis, or pseudo-salafis as I like to call them, are simpletons who do not understand why there are differences in our ummah. They reject the opinions of the salaf (which is why they are not true salafis), such as the sahaba, tabi'in, and the mujtahid imams. They attempt to do ijtihad for themselves, even on issues that were deemed closed, such as touching the Quran without wudu, doing masah on normal socks, etc. And yes, they are the worst type of blind followers, since they follow their scholars such as Albani, with diehard fanaticism that you will not find in muqallids when following their maddhabs. Salafi is a very broad term, which means different things to different people. I myself classify someone a salafi (or pseudo-salafi) if they reject a maddhab and reject the aqidah of ahlus sunnah wal jam'ah (i.e. Ash'ari/Maturidi). By such a definition, Wahhabi and Salafi is the same. For some people, however, they trace the historical origins of salafism, from the time of Ibn Taymiyyah to Shawkani. Historically, two groups arose--the Ahl al Hadith of India, and a group in Najd under the leadership of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. Ibn Abdul Wahhab was more interested in issues of aqa'id than fiqh, whereas the Ahl al Hadith of India were more interested in debunking the Hanafis in matters of fiqh. (As a result of the need to respond to the Ahl al Hadith of India, some of the Deobandi's greatest works, such as I'laa As Sunan were produced). Both have evolved somewhat. Albani came around somewhat later, and shifted the Najdi group to a more fiqh based approach, though they still focus heavily on aqidah, and criticizing the Ash'aris/Maturidis. The Ahl al Hadith of India were also affected by the Najdis, and began to focus more on aqidah as well, though fiqh is still their main focus. So historically, the Wahhabis were only the group who following Ibn Abdul wahhab. However, because of the evolution of the two groups, it is difficult to differentiate them anymore. In addition, many people use the term derogatorily for all salafis. One difference that is sometimes mentioned is that the Wahhabis follow the Hanbali maddhab, and therefore are not opposed to following maddhabs, whereas the Ahl al Hadith of India are. That may have been the truth of Ibn Abdul Wahhab and his immediate followers, but is not true today. The Najdi Wahhabis reject following of maddhabs, considering it a bid'ah, derogatorily coining it "blind following." Many of their works show that they reject maddhabs, and their positions are not in accordance with the Hanbali maddhab. The brother was asking about the difference between salafi and wahabi so i tried to cover the issue in a sort of blanket statement without going into the merits/demerits of salafis.Indeed everyone sect his own diffintion of Ahle sunnah wal jamaa'.As everyone has his own truth and will be questioned for that truth on the Judgment day. I agree with the last part of your post but i would add that the hanbali school always had the perfect tendencies to evolve into salafi school.The arabs were mostly hanbalis and Imam Mohamad bin Abdul wahab Ra did not have to work against hanfiyat or any other school much. However, the Ahle hadith of indian subcontinent emerged into a different environment.They faced staunch hnafiyat around them in the end of 18th century unlike Mohamad bin Abdul wahab ra.So they reacted a bit more harshly towards and sat on the seat of pure ghair muqaladism to refute the staunch muqalids. It would be interesting to note that Sanaullah Amrathsari ra , a prominent indian salafi, criticized Imam Mohamad Bin Abdul Wahab ra for his lenient aproach towards taqleed whose primary focus was on aqeedah. Even if you look at the books which were translated in that era ,only those books were translated into urdu by the ahle hadiths which could be used to refute taqleed.like , only those parts of the 35 volumes of Tareekh e baghdad were translated which had the criticism of Imam Abu hanifa ra. Still u can't find the major work shaikh ul Islam Ibn taymiyya ra in urdu.Shams ud din Afghani wrote a 3 volumes book "Al maturedeya" to refute the maturidi Aqeedah and even that has not been translated into urdu. The arab salafis have criticized this attitude and aproach of ahle hadiths of india off and on.
	Quote