[codespokerbonus]

Ive been thinking this alot. Is there any real problem with Salafis? Can we prove from Quran and Hadith that they are wrong and they have wrong aqeedahs?

All ive come across is they shouldn't demolish the holy sites (which is not wrong), they shouldn't do this they should do that. But there's no solid concrete daleel which we can use.

[zzarratusstra]

According to a Tradition a man devoid of softness is devoid of goodness.
Since Islam is all goodness therefore a person who is too rigid runs the risk of loosing all goodness, including Islam.
Rigidity is a weapon for a believer against dire situations, not in common life and not against fellow Muslims. A believer is soft on believers. We got to look for trouble in rigidity rather than in Usul, Aqeedah and other technicalities. Wallahualam.

[elapicearpisp]

Rigidity is found everywhere, not just limited to one sect.

[BariGrootrego]

Assalamualaikum,

Hadhrat, does this includes those who wrote fatwa against deoband? and also wrote books against tablighi jama'a and deoband?

I just recently came accross the book, and I was astonished.

[limpoporanique]

Rigidity is found everywhere, not just limited to one sect.

If we combine that with the Tradition I have mentioned then the conclusion will be that there is no goodness in the world.
Since this runs contrary to observation therefore your assertion has a fault somewhere.
Of course Allah (SWT) Himself complains that most of the people do not know, obey, understand, etc.
This is quite different from saying that no body knows, obeys, understands, is soft.
We got to acknowledge those people who are soft, who are not devoid of softness.
Once we have sorted out them then we are ready to ask the next empirical question - what percentage of Salafis are soft and what percentage of Barelwis are soft? (See I am leaving a room, actually a stadium, for you to play!)

[Amorsesombabs]

In aqeeda the main problem is they tend to insist that Allah swt is in a location (a creation) and they say Allah swt is everywhere in Knowledge only. If true then they have conceived of Knowledge and the Knower as being two seperate 'things'. Knower, Knowledge and Known are one.

In Fiqh...because they reject the mathab methodology they approve of almost every law of Capitalism...riba, banking, finance etc. they have no Islamic halal alternative, they cannot even think of a alternative...in action they are secularists...the deen is reduced to ibadaat (Salah, Sawm, Haj, Zakaat etc.) only, and Zakaat is reduced to Sadaqa (no collections by the ruler), just every individual makes contributions themselves. Jizya is abandoned too, and there is no talk anywhere of it ever being implemented anywhere. The world of business and trade (the economy) is run by Capitalist rules...Islamic rules do not apply....they have indirectly destroyed the deen.

[DP5Ups8o]

Ive been thinking this alot. Is there any real problem with Salafis? Can we prove from Quran and Hadith that they are wrong and they have wrong aqeedahs?

All ive come across is they shouldn't demolish the holy sites (which is not wrong), they shouldn't do this they should do that. But there's no solid concrete daleel which we can use.

walaikum assalam

Laypeople like us cannot really give you an answer, and I am sure that you must be already aware of this. On the contrary, when you (with your ilm) say this, it (subconsciously) creates a legitimacy of salafism in our minds, because if are having doubts, then what about us?

The topic of salafism is very subtle, which is why a lot of scholars also have fallen into it, and themselves become Salafi by abondoning the madhabs. But does that legitimise it? No, but for the layperson, it has great consequences. Because when we see the scholars do something, we (subconsciously) think that it must be legitimate to a certain degree.

It would probably be most appropriate if you could discuss this with those scholars who have spend majority of their lives studying salafism and can give you the answer. Because subtle matters don't just require answers, but they also require insight. And Allah knows best.

[Solo3uc4]

Firstly 'salafis' is such a broad term which cannot be used in a debate unless defined properly. There are plenty of sub-groups amongst arabs which in turn have are different from Indian sub-continent 'ahle hadith'.

Secondly, some things we blame them for are in fact views within the hanbali school of thought which most of us are not aware of. And their views being stricter than the others is also well-known.

Another thing which I find unfair is attacking them on 'weird' opinions like for example not using weak ahadith. Yes most of 'ulama allowed it [under strict conditions which we surprisingly forget often] but at the same time high-calibre muhadditheen also held the opinion of not using such ahadith. Should we also blame them for that?

Also have a look at Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdil Wahhab aur Hindustan kay Ulama Haq.

[ZAtlLVos]

Assalamu alaykum

I have many friends and relatives who are salfees in India.

The soft among them uses Noman bin saabith for Imam Azam Abu Haneefa RA. They get wild when you use Imam.

The hardest among them do tabarrah of Imam Abu Haneefah, they call him kaafir. (read urdu magazines published by jamiatus salafiah Banaras)

[Gubocang]

http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq5.htm

Was Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal an anthropomorphist as is alleged by the Salafis? Can you provide me examples of the sayings of Imam Ahmad that show he did not hold the anthropomorphic ‘aqida of the neo-Salafis, as they claim?
Answer

Regarding the question of whether Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855) was an anthropomorphist, this is something that has been asked since early times, particularly since someone forged an anthropormorphic tract called Kitab al-sunna [The book of the sunna] and put the name of Imam Ahmad’s son Abdullah (d. 290/903) on it.

I looked this book over with our teacher in hadith, Sheikh Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut, who had examined it one day, and said that at least 50 percent of the hadiths in it are weak or outright forgeries. He was dismayed how Muhammad al-Qahtani, the editor and commentator, could have been given a Ph.d. in Islamic faith (‘aqida) from Umm al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia for readying for publication a work as sadly wanting in authenticity as this.

[hictchewisa]

Assalamu alaykum

I have many friends and relatives who are salfees in India.

The soft among them uses Noman bin saabith for Imam Azam Abu Haneefa RA. They get wild when you use Imam.

The hardest among them do tabarrah of Imam Abu Haneefah, they call him kaafir. (read urdu magazines published by jamiatus salafiah Banaras)

The Indopak ones are called Ahle Hadith. They are different from Saudi Salafis. I'm asking about Saudi Salafis.

[Kliopeion]

walaikum assalam

Laypeople like us cannot really give you an answer, and I am sure that you must be already aware of this. On the contrary, when you (with your ilm) say this, it (subconsciously) creates a legitimacy of salafism in our minds, because if are having doubts, then what about us?

The topic of salafism is very subtle, which is why a lot of scholars also have fallen into it, and themselves become Salafi by abondoning the madhabs. But does that legitimise it? No, but for the layperson, it has great consequences. Because when we see the scholars do something, we (subconsciously) think that it must be legitimate to a certain degree.

It would probably be most appropriate if you could discuss this with those scholars who have spend majority of their lives studying salafism and can give you the answer. Because subtle matters don't just require answers, but they also require insight. And Allah knows best.

Being Right doesn't mean everyone has to follow them. For example, all us hanafis accept that shafi's are on the haq but none of us becomes shafi just because they are right.

My intention is to stop all this anti-salafism that we have in ourselves and carry on with our own line.

[Rememavotscam]

Rigidity is found everywhere, not just limited to one sect.

Totally true ! Rigidity is not exclusive to the salafis... we have just to look around us...

In aqeeda the main problem is they tend to insist that Allah swt is in a location (a creation) and they say Allah swt is everywhere in Knowledge only. If true then they have conceived of Knowledge and the Knower as being two seperate 'things'. Knower, Knowledge and Known are one.

In Fiqh...because they reject the mathab methodology they approve of almost every law of Capitalism...riba, banking, finance etc. they have no Islamic halal alternative, they cannot even think of a alternative...in action they are secularists...the deen is reduced to ibadaat (Salah, Sawm, Haj, Zakaat etc.) only, and Zakaat is reduced to Sadaqa (no collections by the ruler), just every individual makes contributions themselves. Jizya is abandoned too, and there is no talk anywhere of it ever being implemented anywhere. The world of business and trade (the economy) is run by Capitalist rules...Islamic rules do not apply....they have indirectly destroyed the deen.

As for aqeedah issue, I let it to the scholars.. If we just take the issue of the Attributes of Allah, Mufti Taqi's view is that the path of Ibn Taymiyya on this issue is correct, and that's enough for me.

As for rejecting the mathab methodology... I'm not agree, the salafis have differents views on this issue particularly when they're talking about the status of a layman. But what is common amongst all trend of salafism is the fact that for them, it's a duty for those who have knowledge to chose the soundest view according to the Qur'an and the Sunnah even if this view goes against the view of the madhhab the scholar follow.

As for what you've said about riba, banking, finance, and zakât etc... I've never read about those issues from them but I'm surprised by what you're saying...

And what do you mean by "the deen is reduce to ibadaat" ? If you mean they don't talk about purifications of the heart, good characters etc for sure, you have not met enough salafis....

As for jizya, I'm surprised, go to some salafis forums and read what they're saying... Of course those salafis are not those who have the power but it's difficult to say that they don't talk about.

And to not apply islamic rules in finance etc is not single to the salafis... look around you in Europe etc, in many muslims nations, how many people used ribâ ... even when they're far from being salafis...


Bugmenot have summarized the issue very well...

[Ingeborga]

Assalamu alaykum

May be you can have look into this thread.
http://www.haqforum.com/vb/forumdisp...ge4&order=desc

[QuidQuoPro]

Assalamu alaykum

The Indopak ones are called Ahle Hadith. They are different from Saudi Salafis. I'm asking about Saudi Salafis. Taliburrahman, tauseefurrahman, meraaj rabbani etc sitting in Saudia boast that they are working under the guidance of scholars of haram??????

And they spit venom on Imams. Make worst kind of tabarrah of Imams.

[MormefWrarebe]

Firstly 'salafis' is such a broad term which cannot be used in a debate unless defined properly. There are plenty of sub-groups amongst arabs which in turn have are different from Indian sub-continent 'ahle hadith'.

Secondly, some things we blame them for are in fact views within the hanbali school of thought which most of us are not aware of. And their views being stricter than the others is also well-known.

Another thing which I find unfair is attacking them on 'weird' opinions like for example not using weak ahadith. Yes most of 'ulama allowed it [under strict conditions which we surprisingly forget often] but at the same time high-calibre muhadditheen also held the opinion of not using such ahadith. Should we also blame them for that?

Also have a look at Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdil Wahhab aur Hindustan kay Ulama Haq.

i would like to add this:
http://islamicemirate.com/articles/s...lafi-dawa.html

this will open up people's minds to the different salafis present in the world
(the paper is pretty good - however it misses ahle hadith completely and some facts about a certain salafi group are also missing)

[Abebpabeniemo]

The Indopak ones are called Ahle Hadith. They are different from Saudi Salafis. I'm asking about Saudi Salafis.

bhai don't restrict it to saudi salafis only - even among them there are certain groups but still it is best for people to recognize where the salafis go wrong.

[Jasonstawnosaa]

Assalamu alaykum

The relation between Gair muqallideen of India and slafees of Saudia:

You will get an easy admission in Saudia madrasah or university if you carry a recommendation letter from a Gair muqallid madrasah in India or Pakistan.

[Auzuigcx]

Ive been thinking this alot. Is there any real problem with Salafis? Can we prove from Quran and Hadith that they are wrong and they have wrong aqeedahs?

I liked to read alot about Saudi Salafis. Initially I thought they were ruining Islam's image and fell for western propaganda against them. Now I am more neutral and view them as any other genuine Islamic group. Some of their scholarly fatwa's are very good. They show genuine steadfastness to the Deen.

I think the two most important points are covered. Rigidity as alluded to by brother Maripat which is the most important thing they need to remedy and anthropomorphism. Disuniting muslim groups by labelling others bidati's is a disease which was and might still be widely prevalent amongst them.

Other than that I cant think of anything. They are a valid Ahle-Sunnah group. I think the 'Sunnis' are going through a defensive phase and over-compensating by now accusing salafis of deviancy. If the Salafi's become less divisive and rigid and the sunnis stop this salafi assault phase then we can mutually learn alot from each other. They have created alot of exciting new fronts in the debate by re-interprating the whole Fiqah using Quran, hadith and classical scholarship. I see it as an exciting project. MAdhabis need to understand that a group which has such a madhab should be seen as an exciting addition to the continuing tradition of Islam and not take them as enemies.

[wooclosmercob]

http://seekersguidance.org/blog/2012...h-musa-furber/

Salafis digging up Libyan garves.


The Sunni creed that Muslim theologians have taught for the past fourteen centuries to the general masses and at its primary scholarly institutions like the University of al-Qarawiyyin (founded in Fes in 859), and Azhar University (founded in Cairo in 970) — holds that all things in the world are created by God and God alone, in accordance to the Quranic verse “and when thou threwest, it was not thyself that threw, but God threw“(Quran, 8:17). The sound Sunni creed inoculated the majority of the lay community from becoming grave worshipers while visiting graves.

What is important here is that the religious and political authorities responsible for safeguarding religion and society were aware of the situation and left these sites alone. That is, until the 19th century when more militant forms of what became today’s Salafi movements began razing tombs in the Arabian Peninsula on the grounds that they lead to polytheism and declaring anyone in their vicinity a polytheist. Needless to say, the fatwa that were propagated to defend such destruction, as well as those that provide ‘legitimacy’ behind such crimes in today’s Libya, are spurious.


"There is a hadith that clearly states that Muslims will not do shirk, except maybe minor shirk (showing off or ostentation).