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

**WrinnaArraple** · 02-05-2011, 07:50 AM

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.

I agree that the Hanbali maddhab was perfect for developing into Salafism. I was just tracing the history of the two movements, which began independently, into something similar. I did not mean to imply that they are the same movements, as I stressed that the Najdi Wahhabis still focus more on aqidah, and the Indian subcontinent Ahl al Hadith focus on fiqh. However, regardless of what they focus on more, they still agree on the fundamentals of fiqh and aqidah.

I would disagree with you about the arabs being mostly Hanbali. In fact, most Arabs are either Shafi'i or Hanafi (the Arabs living in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine/Israel are mainly Shafi'i, and the Arabs in Syria and Iraq are split between the Hanafis and Shafi'is.) The Hanbalis seem to be focused only in Saudi Arabia, and it is possible that after ibn Abdul Wahhab, they became (loose) Hanbalis, since the Hanbalis had always had tajsimi leanings.

02-05-2011, 07:50 AM	#33
WrinnaArraple Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 462 Senior Member	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. I agree that the Hanbali maddhab was perfect for developing into Salafism. I was just tracing the history of the two movements, which began independently, into something similar. I did not mean to imply that they are the same movements, as I stressed that the Najdi Wahhabis still focus more on aqidah, and the Indian subcontinent Ahl al Hadith focus on fiqh. However, regardless of what they focus on more, they still agree on the fundamentals of fiqh and aqidah. I would disagree with you about the arabs being mostly Hanbali. In fact, most Arabs are either Shafi'i or Hanafi (the Arabs living in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine/Israel are mainly Shafi'i, and the Arabs in Syria and Iraq are split between the Hanafis and Shafi'is.) The Hanbalis seem to be focused only in Saudi Arabia, and it is possible that after ibn Abdul Wahhab, they became (loose) Hanbalis, since the Hanbalis had always had tajsimi leanings.
	Quote