[tipokot]

From Shaykh Nuh Keller's 2007 Suhba in UK: http://al-miftah.blogspot.com/2007/0...keller-uk.html

A question was asked: “What should be the approach of someone in the tariq towards working with other Muslims with different beliefs e.g. modernists or salafis”

The Shaykh responded that we should help them with ourselves. He proceeded to say that The modernists are doing a disservice to Islam, because their fatwas are against the interest of the Muslims (and the Shaykh referred back to the example of the hijab fatwa mentioned above).

The Shaykh warned against the divisions modernists create amongst Muslims and warned against the geographical segmentation of the Muslims and said (about the Modernists) “They divide up the Muslims, They validate things that are slack in Islamic practice, they divide up the Ummah, with fatwas like we’re a different society here we’re a muslim minority here”

The Shaykh said “We say to the modernists nothing needs to be modernised” and referred to them (the modernists) as pernicious. The Shaykh further stated that Salafism seems to be fleeing and in the state of reversal, that they had “spent their coin”. He stressed that we pray behind everybody in the masjid, but that we should be firm in case anyone tries to give us a dars about this or that.

The Shaykh went on to explain that the Qur’an commands us “ask those who know well, (Ahl ul dhikri)”, and that “A modernist is someone with an inferiority complex, so he’s not of the Ahl ul dhikri, not someone who knows well about the things of his deen.”

The Shaykh finished off by warning against what he called the insidious poison of the modernists appealing to the vanities of the educated Muslims, and said:

“We don’t have a superiority complex, we don’t have a supercilious way of looking at others, but tell plainly in word and deed to the Modernists whose poison more insidious and worse and more likely to have a detrimental impact than salafis”
He continued:

“Modernists they do manage to steal a lot of the hearts of educated Muslims who think that being an educated muslim consist in repeating their phrases and so forth and having zero taqwa”

He described the way of zero taqwa displayed by the modernists as “The way of giving someone who is a diabetic more candy - Rukhsa city oh boy” and , “it’s the way of making the person more sick so they cant get any better so they don’t feel anything so their hearts become further and further from Allah swt”

His concluding remark was that those who say “I’m just making it easier” only made it easier for the Shaitan to take people.

The above was one of the last statements of the Shaykh in the UK 2007 Suhba.

May Allah swt preserve Shaykh Nuh and reward him for his warnings against being apologetic Muslims or cowards, against in his words “the batil of Minority Fiqh/Fiqh al Aqaliat” and against the insidious poison of the modernists who are pushing for a geographical segmentation of Islam and who in the shaykhs words “are more likely to have a detrimental effect than the salafis”.

Such a strongly worded warning from a scholar and a man who has devoted the better part of his life as a muslim and scholastic career to refuting the batil of the salafis is not to be taken lightly, and may Allah swt protect us from the above mentioned perils.

[Roorseprate]

JazakAllah kyran.

[mpxricyNimb]

In my humble manner ,I have something to say in this matter.
It is essential part of our Imaan as Muslims that Mohammad (Sallalahu alayhi Wasalam) is not only the Messenger of Allah but the last and the Final Messenger of Allah. The negation of the Finality of the Prphethood for Mohammad (Sallalahu alayhi Wasalam) has rightly earned the stigma of Ilhaad and Kufr.
The finality of Messengership connotes that the Message (of Islam) is final. This leaves no scope for what they call ‘modernism’. Modernism is applicable and acceptable in the sense that Islamic approach for new matters is to be prescribed in the light of Quran and Sunnah. Whatever is prescribed in Quran and Sunnah is most modern because it from Allah and through the Final Messenger and Prophet. There is no possibility of changing or challenging anything laid down in Quran and Sunnah because it is as old as Islam and as fresh as the present moment.
Hijab ,for example, is applicable to modern age as much as it was applicable to the earlier ages because for Muslims every age is Prophet’s (Sallalahu alayhi wasalam) age. This age is also Prophet’s (Sallalahu alayhi Wasalam) age because it is and shall be the selfsame Allah, the selfsame Islam, the selfsame Quran, the self same Sunnah ,the selfsame Kalima , the self same Prophet (Sallalahu alayhi Wasalam) and the self same Qibla. None of these have changed or needs to change. Yes, Hijab is applicable to modern age as it was applicable earlier. It is so because women still continues to be what she was then and human nature ,too , has not changed. The purpose of Hijab is to decrease the possibility of lust and lechery based corruption. Has modern man becom less lustful and less lecherous that the need for Hijab has decreased. The fact is that lust and lechery has increased immensely and need for Hijab has increased and not decreased. The so called modernists want to use their so called modernism for facilitating the exhibition of women’s natural attractions for promotion of lust and lechery. Modernism is exhibition of female (and even male) nudity through all media and mediums. As Islam opposes such nudity, it ,in their opinion, needs to be modernized.
Yes,Islam is the purest form of Gold. Those who need to avail it must have it as it is.No apologetic approaches, as suggested by sheikh Nuh.

[Nmoitmzr]

[PrettyFifa12]

My absolute favourite article (or Suhba transcription) from Shaykh Nuh (hafidhahullah).

[Slintreeoost]

It's not the first time Shaykh Nuh has spoken out against modernism. He was quoted earlier last year in a disturbing article about some American Muslims and their modernist leanings:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may...-imam-20110527

As obnoxious as some salafis can be I think Shaykh Nuh makes an extremely valid point that modernists pose a greater threat to our deen.

[AntonioMQ]

In my opinion, modernists are a branch of Salafism. Both have elements of rejecting classical scholarship and challenging long-established laws.

[drmarshallusa]

In my opinion, modernists are a branch of Salafism. Both have elements of rejecting classical scholarship and challenging long-established laws.

Agreed. Their usool are similar.

[johnbeller]

In my opinion, modernists are a branch of Salafism. Both have elements of rejecting classical scholarship and challenging long-established laws.

yes, i think salafis(who themselves follow shariah) has opened the doors for "modernists" by rejecting taqleed of classical scholars and introducing self understandings in the name of "revival".

[Lypepuddyu]

yes, i think salafis(who themselves follow shariah) has opened the doors for "modernists" by rejecting taqleed of classical scholars and introducing self understandings in the name of "revival".

They're like protestants, who think that a layman can read the bible for himself and understand it. And because of that, just like protestants, salafis became a gateway to massive splintering into thousands of smaller groups.

[Lebybynctisee]

In my opinion, modernists are a branch of Salafism. Both have elements of rejecting classical scholarship and challenging long-established laws.

Agreed. Both are revisionist movements at heart.

In fact, I'd wager that Salafism is actually more dangerous for the Ummah at large. From what I know Sh. Nuh's students tend to be more affluent people, which is probably why he saw modernism as a greater danger for them, as Salafism tends to be less popular amongst more wealthy and educated Muslims. For the majority of Muslims however, who tend to be poor, I think Salafism is far more attractive than modernism.

[WomanBreast40356]

In my opinion, modernists are a branch of Salafism. Both have elements of rejecting classical scholarship and challenging long-established laws.

In fact, the movement of "Salafiyyah" originally (back in the 19th century) was born as a reformist movement; see the works of Rashir Rida, Muhammad Abduh, etc.
Al-Albani grow his interest in hadith research by reading "al-Manar" magazine edited by Muhammad Abduh, who was one of the founders of Salafiyyah, a neo-Mu'tazili freemason installed by the British as "Grand-Mufti" of al-Azhar, from where he will "legitimize" riba and so on.

That's from where modern-day Salafis take their hate for the four Madhahib and Tasawwuf, both of whom were criticized by the early proponents of the original reformist "Salafiyyah" as the "causes of immobility and stagnation" of the Ummah as compared to the "mighty west", which they looked up as a model. For them, restarting a "new Ijtihad" directly from the sources was the only way to forward the "Western-style progress" in the Islamic Ummah.

That's all history.

[Lebybynctisee]

In fact, the movement of "Salafiyyah" originally (back in the 19th century) was born as a reformist movement; see the works of Rashir Rida, Muhammad Abduh, etc.
Al-Albani grow his interest in hadith research by reading "al-Manar" magazine edited by Muhammad Abduh, who was one of the founders of Salafiyyah, a neo-Mu'tazili freemason installed by the British as "Grand-Mufti" of al-Azhar, from where he will "legitimize" riba and so on.

That's from where modern-day Salafis take their hate for the four Madhahib and Tasawwuf, both of whom were criticized by the early proponents of the original reformist "Salafiyyah" as the "causes of immobility and stagnation" of the Ummah as compared to the "mighty west", which they looked up as a model. For them, restarting a "new Ijtihad" directly from the sources was the only way to forward the "Western-style progress" in the Islamic Ummah.

That's all history.

I wonder if there's a book on the history of the various movements that somehow came together to form modern day Salafiyyah (i.e. Wahabism, Egyptian neo-Mu`tazilism, Ahle Hadith, etc.) and how they eventually coalesced into what we know and see today.

I think it's interesting, and unfortunately something that doesn't get a lot of attention.

While tackling their doctrinal positions and refuting them is one tactic, and it works, it may benefit to present a fair history of the movement, to show how it came to separate itself from the rest of Ahlus Sunnah.

[WomanBreast40356]

I wonder if there's a book on the history of the various movements that somehow came together to form modern day Salafiyyah (i.e. Wahabism, Egyptian neo-Mu`tazilism, Ahle Hadith, etc.) and how they eventually coalesced into what we know and see today.

I think it's interesting, and unfortunately something that doesn't get a lot of attention.

While tackling their doctrinal positions and refuting them is one tactic, and it works, it may benefit to present a fair history of the movement, to show how it came to separate itself from the rest of Ahlus Sunnah.

Completely agreed.

Some overview of all this is offered in several orientalists' publications (which means that much has to be taken with a pinch of salt, indeed); unfortunately, many Muslims are quite weak in history and especially Muslim history, and that's why they are often confused and deviated by deviants taking proofs from de-contextualized historical facts.

[AutocadOemM]

I wonder if there's a book on the history of the various movements that somehow came together to form modern day Salafiyyah (i.e. Wahabism, Egyptian neo-Mu`tazilism, Ahle Hadith, etc.) and how they eventually coalesced into what we know and see today.

I think it's interesting, and unfortunately something that doesn't get a lot of attention.

While tackling their doctrinal positions and refuting them is one tactic, and it works, it may benefit to present a fair history of the movement, to show how it came to separate itself from the rest of Ahlus Sunnah.

The root cause of all these movements is secularism. These movements are the other extreme of Secularism.