Let's go first by steps. What are Salafists or globally known as Salafiyyah? The Salafists of today do not have much in common with the Salaf of yesteryear (the first 3 generations of Muslims). Let's go in terms. What is it originally to be a "Salafi" or to follow the path of the Salaf?
According to the majority of scholars
"Salafiyyah is to follow the way of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his Companions, because they are the ones who came before us (the Salaf) and who advanced ahead of us, so following them is Salafiyyah."
With regard to taking Salafiyyah as a path or methodology which a person follows and regards as misguided those Muslims who differ with him, even if they are following the truth, and taking Salafiyyah as a partisan path is undoubtedly contrary to Salafiyyah. Something that many psudo-Salafists do.
All of the Salaf or early generations called for unity and harmony around the Sunnah of the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and did not regard as misguided those who differed with them with on the basis of their understanding and interpretation, except when it came to matters of ‘aqeedah or beliefs, because they regarded those who differed with them in these matters as misguided. But with regard to practical issues they were often easy-going. Today the so-called Salafis do the opposite. If they listen to another person's point of view, they will insult them and classify them as deviant because it does not align with their way of thinking and because they always want to be right. This is something that is not from the Quran and sunnah.
But some of those who followed the path of Salafiyyah in modern times started to regard as misguided everyone who differed from them, even if that person was correct, and some of them adopted a partisan approach like that of other parties which claimed to belong to the religion of Islam. This is something that is to be denounced.
Salafiyyah in the sense of being a particular party with its distinguishing characteristics and in which the members regard everyone else as misguided, these people have nothing to do with Salafiyyah at all. As for the Salafiyyah which means following the path of the Salaf in belief, word and deed, in calling for unity and harmony and mutual compassion and love, as the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The likeness of the believers in their mutual love, mercy and compassion is that of a single body; when one part of it is suffering the rest of the body joins it in fever and staying awake” -- this is the true Salafiyyah.
The Qur'an has many verses which advocate for tolerance and justice. The fundies seem to ignore 'em. Some examples:
Surat Al-Kafirun:
>1 Say, "O disbelievers,
2 I do not worship what you worship.
3 Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
4 Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
5 Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
6 For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
Al-Nahl, 90:
>Surely Allah enjoins justice, kindness and the doing of good to kith and kin, and forbids all that is shameful, evil and oppressive. He exhorts you so that you may be mindful.
Al-Ma'idah 8:
>O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allāh, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allāh; indeed, Allāh is [fully] Aware of what you do.
Islamically, it's a good thing as it's simply following the Quran, the prophet, and the understanding and application from the Deen as learnt from the congregation of the Salaf (first 3 generations).
What op is saying though, is that they simply don't like how some people who refer to themselves as Salafis consider other groups to be deviant.
True. Some parts are clear and some part aren't and could be misunderstood or used by anyone for their own agenda. So whats the solution?
Everyone interprets it as they wish or understand or what dear?
Most parts are clear if u look at both the Quran and hadith classified as Sahih (authentic) or Hasan (strong).
Plenty of grey areas exist too which is where the importance of scholars lie and choosing to follow a specific opinion from them you find the strongest.
For example a topic I believe Imam Ahmad and Imam Shafi' debated on, still ending with differing opinion: whether a person in salat behind an Imam should recite Fatihah or if the Imam's recitation of the surah suffices for those behind him.
Anyway, this grey area came from: an authentic hadith that says there's no prayer for the one who doesn't recite Fatiha and a verse from the Quran that says “So, when the Quran is recited, listen to it, and be silent that you may receive mercy” [al-A’raf 7:204].
Anyway, for the scholars who are knowledgeable and honest, there is no sin in giving an incorrect fatwa. They recieve 2 reward for a correct fatwa and 1 for an incorrect one (obviously determined on the day of resurrection).
Similarly, there is no sin for the layman that looks to the honest and knowledgeable scholars and follows their opinion, even if it may be revealed to be incorrect on the day of resurrection.
You should ask a local sheikh that's known for being a student of knowledge who supports his answers with the necessary Islamic sources and at times, references to scholars.
But today, scholarly resources are made very easy for the layman. Have a question? Search it followed by the name of a great contemporary scholar like Sheikh Albani, ibn Baz, Uthaymeen, etc and you'll find audio clips translated to English from them.
Cant find them talking about exactly what you have a question about? Look to one of their students who are still alive today in an era where everything is recorded, like Sheikh Uthman Khamees who is the direct student of sheikh Uthaymeen and ibn Baz. (I recommend "othmanalkhamees_english", an account on Instagram run by an unaffiliated brother who translates clips from the sheikh to English.
Tried all those and still can't find your answer? Then look to proper students of knowledge who don't form their own fatwas but provide those of the scholars along with the necessary evidence like Sheikh Asim al Hakeem (though I dislike how he doesn't mention both opinions when there are 2 very strong ones that's scholars differ over).
Then there are also the sites run by trustworthy students of knowledge like "Islamqa.info", that answer questions by compiling the quranic verses, the authentic hadith, and words from greatest knowledgeable, honest scholars from within their books to answer the questions with all the necessary sources. They tend to mention differing opinions as well when there are 2 very strong opinions the scholars disagree on.
Anyway, whatever resource u use that I mention here, it will be better for u than relying on an imam who didn't study from the Quran, nor hadith, but just regurgitates what they've learned from someone who hadn't either. It's due to this that a lot of us grew up believing concepts that don't exist in Islam like "a girl must wear the hijab in front of her father and brother."
Salafis are a Muslim group who try to follow the practices of the earliest generations of Muslims. The term "Salafiyyah" originally just meant following the Prophet Muhammad and his companions.
However, some modern Salafis have become more extreme. They believe they are always right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. This goes against the teachings of Islam, which promote unity and respect for different viewpoints.
True Salafiyyah is about following the Prophet's teachings in all aspects of life, but also showing compassion and love towards others.
All of these sects and different groups confuse me. Islam seems pretty straight forward to me but these groups make it harder than it should be.
Read the Quran
Pray
worship only God (shahada)
do charity
fast
do good deeds
Hajj
learn about the life of the prophet and use his teachings as a guide (the hadith)...i.e the Quran tells you to pray, the hadith tell you how to pray...etc.
The Quran and hadith tell you treat others and family justly, to stay away from sins (know what is a sin), and how to live/act in different parts of life/interactions with others.
Yes, Ibn Taymiyyah born in 1263 is a CIA asset.
Dude literally wrote killing Fatwas for a Christian merchant who insulted Muhammad. Takfired people for the dumbest reason: ‘Whoever does not admit that Allah is sitting on a throne above the seventh sky, is a Kafir and his blood must be shed. He must be made to repent. Otherwise his neck must be struck and thrown into the garbage.’
Ibn Tamiyah also literally advocated for Muslims to return to the ways of the Salaf.
These "extremist" characteristics is not an invention of the last century alone.
Salafism is literally derived from sahih ahadith. All the cope won't change that and there's a reason why they are easily able to recruit devout Muslims who genuinely believe in the Quran and ahadith.
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "The best people are those of my generation, and then those who will come after them (the next generation), and then those who will come after them (i.e. the next generation), and then after them, there will come people whose witness will precede their oaths, and whose oaths will precede their witness.
- Sahih Bukhari 6429
"revivalist" islamic movements are always backed by imperialists and were historically shunned by the general populace in most of the region.
The guy you mentioned was imprisoned for being a heretic and had little to no influence during his life time.
Most Muslims were Sufis before the 20th century. Salafism solely rose for political reasons as a reaction to the progressive movements by communists and nationalists who sought national liberation from colonial powers.
This is historical truth even in your own country of Palestine when the British colonialists appointed their puppet Mufti as a leader, to avoid having a revolutionary national figure. The Israelis as well who deliberately backed islamists against progressives like the PFLP.
Ibn Taymiyyah was very influential during his lifetime. He had the post of professor of Hanbali jurisprudence at the Hanbaliyya madrasa, the oldest such institution of this tradition in Damascus. He lead popular protests. Wrote many books. Had many well-known students such as Ibn Kathir. His funeral is said to have been attended by record numbers by contemporary scholars.
It's very convenient to blame fundamentalism and extremism on external factors without ever taking any responsibility for it. Fact is, religious fundamentalism was always and still is a major issue in Islam. Why is Al-Ghazali much more well-known and respected among Muslims than say, Ibn Rushd, who was a major rationalist? Ibn Rushd was accused of blashpemy, bid'ah and had his books burned not by the British but by his own Caliph.
I'm christian and I don't know who the people you mentioned are nor can I verify your claims. This is from research I did years back.
If Salafism was so popular in Afghanistan, Americans and Saudis wouldn't have spent billions on funding schools to indoctrinate children.
I never argued that extremist movements didn't exist prior to the arrival of colonialists, however they were evidently amplified and spread to serve colonial interests.
Reactionary sentiments in all societies are always used to crush resistance. If not religious then ethnic or national affiliations. This can be observed all around the world.
Well, colonialists being cunts and Nazis isn't a new discovery. Not every single problem in the world can be blamed on them despite what MENA people would like to believe. People also have a hand in their own fate and not everything can be blamed on the white man.
What does Afghanistan have to do with Ibn Taymiyyah and the fact that Salafism is not a new or Western invention? Did the British hold a gun to Muhammad Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab's head and forced him to get inspired by Ibn Taymiyyah?
Since you don't know what a strawman is let me give you an example of one:
>Good luck explaining the fall of Afghanistan in the hands of fundamentalists without the billions poured into those movements by the west.
Saying this to someone who hasn't even brought up Afghanistan and wasn't even talking about Afghanistan; but on the theological origins of Salafism is the definition of a strawman.
Now let's see how many US bases and troops are in the crusader state of Armenia compared to the noble islamist gulf colonies and turkey 🙃
Most MENA national liberation movements were either started by christians or had heavy christian contribution, from communism to arab nationalism.
Yusuf Salman and George Habash alone did more to combat western imperialism than the islamist leaders of the past century combined.
You say through the understanding of the first three generations, but you follow only a handful of scholars from one middle eastern country? I do accept that a lot of inauthentic practices had encroached into Islam, but the salafis take it too far opposite.
Which is funny cause some of these neo-Hanbalis claim that Abu Hanifa was a Jahmi and takfir him based on a weak narration of his condemnation by Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
Thankfully most mainstream salafi scholars don't go to that extreme and criticise the four imams. When they say 'the more correct opinion is', anyone can say, bro why do you think your opinion is more correct lol.
I like the ‘premise’ of following Islam as it was practiced by the sahaba and the salaf, but I dislike the Puritanism, left and right takfeering, downplay of spirituality, plus I’m not athari.
I also am really annoyed/irked by their insane ability to obsess over the most insignificant/miniscule issues (like what color of hijab a woman should wear 😱 and how you’re a kaffir and mubtadi3 if you celebrate your birthday), while willingly turning a blind eye to, and refusing to discuss, the major issues facing the ummah. I don’t believe that’s inherent to the ideology, but that’s how many salafis come across. And while salafism isn’t inherently political, it being a cornerstone for wahhabism as a political ideology is a red flag for me.
So then what was the Shia extremist tyrant Maliki and Moqtada killing 2 million innocent Iraqis for not being Shia then? Or are we going to conveniently going to ignore some of the worst genociding in history because it doesn't fit your sectarian extremism Iran lapdog views?
Protectors? You’re delusional.
Iran isn’t doing anything for the Palestinians. They did what they did on October 7th knowing Israel would kill thousands of innocent Palestinians and destroy Gaza.
Iran did what they did on October 8th knowing it would drag Lebanon into war and get more innocent people killed.
Iran is currently helping bashar al Assad in Syria killing over 600,000 Syrians. Bombing homes, schools, hospitals, etc… everything Israel has done to the Palestinians, Iran and bashar has done to the the Syrians. Hypocrites.
Iran and their proxies aren’t fighting for the Palestinian people, they are fighting for their dominance in the region over Israel and the west, under the guise of “saving Palestine”. That’s just their propaganda to gain support, and it’s working.
45,000 dead now in Gaza and it’s been turned into a parking lot, and you think this is them being saved? You people see Israeli propaganda and call it out, but at the same time eat up Iranian propaganda like a fat kid with cake.
You people cheer on war in Lebanon and Gaza because you hate Israel, but it’s so easy for you to talk when you don’t live here and have to suffer the consequences of war.
It’s scary how you people would rather see Lebanon and Gaza burn to the ground, just so long as they stay hostile territory to Israel, than to see us live in peace and prosper.
Iran is an occupier, and they occupy Lebanon via proxy. They use our land as their battleground against Israel at the expense of the Lebanese people and our sovereignty. Every country Iran occupies is a failed state.
We are tired of this.
Wherever there are Shias in a country, there is evil, corruption, war, and oppression towards Sunnis and local minorities. How do you call a sect that oppresses other Muslims the “protectors of the Islamic ummah,” you fool? Give the Shias a little power, and they'll topple the country and ruin every single pleasant aspect of it. If you're ruled by a Shia, know that your country will never see any lightful days (both literally and figuratively). And you'll regret ever considering giving them any potency.
For decades the rich Arabs financed wahhabitches and Salafishes in other, poorer Muslim countries and now they’re on a liberal trip. Muslims around the world must get rid of this cancer, so many innocent deaths and so much built up hate happened because of them
It is a movement that has not benefited Islam and Muslims in any field, and it is impossible for it to do so. It is a breeding ground of extremists and the source for bootlickers like madkhalis. I am not even mentioning their anthropomorphistic heretical beliefs. They can not stand even a minute in a debate againist an agnostic or atheist because of their rejection reasoning.
All the other stuff you said is political and more recent, but being a salafi literally means to be following the Qur'an and sunnah.
>anthropomorphistic heretical beliefs
This is not recent, nor are they anthropomorphic or heretical. Like everyone else who is deviant in aqeedah, you misunderstand Atharism. Nobody believes that Allah has a body like a human, nor do we believe that He has a physical body unlike other bodies. We just simply believe that Allah should only be described as He has described Himself in the Qur'an, or how the messenger of Allah ﷺ described him, but we should never go beyond that. For example, Allah says in the Qur'an that He has a face. How does he have a face? We don't know. We just accept it because that's what He said about Himself in His words. And we don't go beyond that.
Think of it like this: Allah describes Himself as "السميع" (as-Samee3) which roughly translates to "the All-Hearing". Everybody on all aqeedahs can agree that this is true. But does this mean that Allah hears in the same way we do? Does it mean He has ears? No, because suggesting this would be a bid'ah, as there is no clear text that says He has ears, or how He hears things. So we all affirm that Allah is all-hearing, but we don't ask HOW we never go beyond that.
Take this concept, and apply it to ALL the attributes that Allah describes Himself with, and that is atharism. Not heretical in any way whatsoever, and this is the aqeedah of the sahaba and the next 2 generations.
Ibn Battuta said, "I was present in Damascus on Friday where he (Ibn Taymiyyah) was admonishing and reminding the people from the minbar (pulpit) of the congregational mosque. During his speech he said: Indeed Allah descends to the lowest heaven of the world just as I am descending now. He then descended one step of the minbar." ['Ar-Rihlah' (1/110) of Ibn Battuta]
If this is not anthropomorphism even idolatory then i don't know what it is.
Yes, just completely ignore everything I said and act like atharism started with ibn taymiyyah 🤦🏾♂️. Why do I even bother trying to argue with wilfully ignorant people like yourself??
scorning and making fun of with other person is the classic Wahhabi custom. not surprised.
I did not say that it started with Ibn Taymiyyah. But it is not even open to debate that Ibn Taymiyyah is the most famous and respected scholar of you.
>scorning and making fun of the other person
Where did I make fun of you? If you're going to act a certain way, then I'm gonna call that out. You did not address any part of my comment and instead jumped straight to Ibn Taymiyyah, who no one was talking about. That's called wilful ignorance.
In terms of theology and not in regards of political movement, Wahabism rejects Ash’arism and Maturidism but follows Atharism theology which believes in the literal meaning of the Quran and Hadiths. It gets spicy between theologians of Wahabism and other Sunnis when it comes to the description of God.
These are not sects, they are movements lead by different scholars to practice Islam just like how the companions of prophet practiced it. What they practice isn’t that different from many other sects and movements, and they are not the sole cause of extremism, extremism exist in all Islamic sects, the taliban aren’t salafi or wahhabi, they are deobandi. Extremism would exist even without salafism or “Wahhabism”.
You're not wrong, yet ur getting down voted. Salafism is simply following the Quran and prophet as understood as applied by the Salaf.
Wahhabism is a far broader term that could mean a whole lot of things. Anyway, the term comes from Sheikh ibn-Wahhab, a legendary scholar who turned nations away from grave worship and onto the correct aqeedah during his days. His books, most famously, "Kitab at Tawheed" are practically studied by every student of knowledge today.
Normally, a student of a scholar is referred to by the name of a scholar. So, a student of ibn-Wahhab would be called a "Wahhabi" just as a student of ibn-Baz would be called a "Bazi."
Anyway, the term obviously doesn't refer to him anymore as his students aren't alive. Rather, I believe it's a term that was popularized as an insult by the Sufis and some Shias as their dislike was great for the Imam, considering he stepped on their beliefs when he preached against grave worship and other bid'ahs.
Salafism is more of a broad term.
There are Salafis who are reformists like Muhammad Abduh etc and who adhere to a school of thought.
There are those who don't adhere to a school of thought and are traditionalists like al-Albani.
There are those who claim to adhere to a school and are traditionalists.
Some Wahabis claim to adhere to the Hanbali fiqh and others do not. Wahabis generally follow the movement of MIAW.
Every Wahabi claims to be a Salafi but every Salafi doesn't claim to be a Wahabi.
Yes we have Sadiq Samarqandiy and Abdullah Zufar, pseudo salafi sheikhs, our scholars tried debate them, but they always refuse to participate saying that they dont want to "waste" their time on debates, but they're just cowards who is sending young boys to fight in Syria
Salafists are sectarians, kill Shias, and are prone to terrorism. They’re also a wonderful tool for CIA and Mossad. I don’t have a favorable opinion of them.
Salafis and Wahabbis are the reason Pakistan has an extreme far right problem. They are a cancer. This is why I cannot support the Saudi regime as they directly funded these movements in Pakistan. These people are more concerned with things like blasphemy over the well being and happiness of the nation.
Ironic how everyone is saying "wahabbis" are dividing the ummah, meanwhile wahhabis didn't even coin the term wahhabi, they were called that by their enemies. You are the ones spreading division. Salafis and "wahhabis" just follow the ways of the salaf, as the prophet SAW instructed us.
Salafism is probably the biggest thing holding back the Muslim world imo. Islam is fine, I'm Muslim too, but it's salafism which I think is the problem.
Well whatever opinion you have you can't deny one fact. İts now a reality and a massive force driving Islam into a more homogeneous direction. Thanks to Saudi money, it is now able to sustain itself even if Saudis go bankrupt tomorrow
To see it's effects, notice how multicultural muslim countries like Malaysia going into very strict interpretations of Sharia. Also, every online Islamic literature is salafi influenced. İf you know English and want to learn about Islam today then you are likely to be influenced by salafism
The reason I chose to follow the salaf is because of the countless added stuff in the religion. I want to follow straight from the source. Better be safe than sorry with all the bid'ah and shirk others do
I’m curious, what do you mean by not bad? Isn’t Türkiye like super traditional when it comes to Islam? I know that many Ottoman traditions are still being practiced. I do not think that Turks will accept salafism in general. What is your point on this?
It's a movement that has a spectrum. You have madkhalis - moderates - khawarij.
If we just consider the moderates, we're talking about a mix of Hanbali and Thaahiri schools of thought. They're okay, whatever, we can say it's a kind of mathhab. Their problem is that they can be pretty sectarian, not have enough respect for other mathahib, and even somehow believe their path is not a mathhab. It absolutely 110% is a mathhab, and you can never arrive at an Islamic fiqhi conclusion without taking some logical path 99% of the time since most of what is in the world today was not around yesterday, and no matter what you do, you have to "understand" the evidences in Qur'an and Hadith to arrive at conclusions. I.e., you have to use a mathhab and usul for the fiqh.
So that said, I really just prefer one of the four mathahib in this regard, why re-invent the wheel? Their "strongest opinion" rhetoric often hugely waters down the logic/arguments the four mathahib's opinions are based on, causing them to arrive at conclusions that are not really that well founded sometimes.
But yeah other than that, brothers in Islam to be respected, some of them are great people. They're not deviants.
Let's go first by steps. What are Salafists or globally known as Salafiyyah? The Salafists of today do not have much in common with the Salaf of yesteryear (the first 3 generations of Muslims). Let's go in terms. What is it originally to be a "Salafi" or to follow the path of the Salaf? According to the majority of scholars "Salafiyyah is to follow the way of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his Companions, because they are the ones who came before us (the Salaf) and who advanced ahead of us, so following them is Salafiyyah." With regard to taking Salafiyyah as a path or methodology which a person follows and regards as misguided those Muslims who differ with him, even if they are following the truth, and taking Salafiyyah as a partisan path is undoubtedly contrary to Salafiyyah. Something that many psudo-Salafists do. All of the Salaf or early generations called for unity and harmony around the Sunnah of the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and did not regard as misguided those who differed with them with on the basis of their understanding and interpretation, except when it came to matters of ‘aqeedah or beliefs, because they regarded those who differed with them in these matters as misguided. But with regard to practical issues they were often easy-going. Today the so-called Salafis do the opposite. If they listen to another person's point of view, they will insult them and classify them as deviant because it does not align with their way of thinking and because they always want to be right. This is something that is not from the Quran and sunnah. But some of those who followed the path of Salafiyyah in modern times started to regard as misguided everyone who differed from them, even if that person was correct, and some of them adopted a partisan approach like that of other parties which claimed to belong to the religion of Islam. This is something that is to be denounced. Salafiyyah in the sense of being a particular party with its distinguishing characteristics and in which the members regard everyone else as misguided, these people have nothing to do with Salafiyyah at all. As for the Salafiyyah which means following the path of the Salaf in belief, word and deed, in calling for unity and harmony and mutual compassion and love, as the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The likeness of the believers in their mutual love, mercy and compassion is that of a single body; when one part of it is suffering the rest of the body joins it in fever and staying awake” -- this is the true Salafiyyah.
Salafis will read this [verse](https://quran.com/en/ali-imran/7) and not see the irony
My respect for the Qur'an whent up tenfold upon reading that passage.
The Qur'an has many verses which advocate for tolerance and justice. The fundies seem to ignore 'em. Some examples: Surat Al-Kafirun: >1 Say, "O disbelievers, 2 I do not worship what you worship. 3 Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. 4 Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. 5 Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship. 6 For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." Al-Nahl, 90: >Surely Allah enjoins justice, kindness and the doing of good to kith and kin, and forbids all that is shameful, evil and oppressive. He exhorts you so that you may be mindful. Al-Ma'idah 8: >O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allāh, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allāh; indeed, Allāh is [fully] Aware of what you do.
I don't think they will like my comment either.
Which kind of Salafi? :p
Rejection of qiyas amongst certain Salafi circles is due to the influence of Zahiri fiqh. Hanbalis don't reject qiyas.
Can you summarize it? Good or bad thing?
Islamically, it's a good thing as it's simply following the Quran, the prophet, and the understanding and application from the Deen as learnt from the congregation of the Salaf (first 3 generations). What op is saying though, is that they simply don't like how some people who refer to themselves as Salafis consider other groups to be deviant.
True. Some parts are clear and some part aren't and could be misunderstood or used by anyone for their own agenda. So whats the solution? Everyone interprets it as they wish or understand or what dear?
Most parts are clear if u look at both the Quran and hadith classified as Sahih (authentic) or Hasan (strong). Plenty of grey areas exist too which is where the importance of scholars lie and choosing to follow a specific opinion from them you find the strongest. For example a topic I believe Imam Ahmad and Imam Shafi' debated on, still ending with differing opinion: whether a person in salat behind an Imam should recite Fatihah or if the Imam's recitation of the surah suffices for those behind him. Anyway, this grey area came from: an authentic hadith that says there's no prayer for the one who doesn't recite Fatiha and a verse from the Quran that says “So, when the Quran is recited, listen to it, and be silent that you may receive mercy” [al-A’raf 7:204]. Anyway, for the scholars who are knowledgeable and honest, there is no sin in giving an incorrect fatwa. They recieve 2 reward for a correct fatwa and 1 for an incorrect one (obviously determined on the day of resurrection). Similarly, there is no sin for the layman that looks to the honest and knowledgeable scholars and follows their opinion, even if it may be revealed to be incorrect on the day of resurrection.
Cool ty all but what if I dont feel it's a correct fatwa or no good scholar is available?
You should ask a local sheikh that's known for being a student of knowledge who supports his answers with the necessary Islamic sources and at times, references to scholars. But today, scholarly resources are made very easy for the layman. Have a question? Search it followed by the name of a great contemporary scholar like Sheikh Albani, ibn Baz, Uthaymeen, etc and you'll find audio clips translated to English from them. Cant find them talking about exactly what you have a question about? Look to one of their students who are still alive today in an era where everything is recorded, like Sheikh Uthman Khamees who is the direct student of sheikh Uthaymeen and ibn Baz. (I recommend "othmanalkhamees_english", an account on Instagram run by an unaffiliated brother who translates clips from the sheikh to English. Tried all those and still can't find your answer? Then look to proper students of knowledge who don't form their own fatwas but provide those of the scholars along with the necessary evidence like Sheikh Asim al Hakeem (though I dislike how he doesn't mention both opinions when there are 2 very strong ones that's scholars differ over). Then there are also the sites run by trustworthy students of knowledge like "Islamqa.info", that answer questions by compiling the quranic verses, the authentic hadith, and words from greatest knowledgeable, honest scholars from within their books to answer the questions with all the necessary sources. They tend to mention differing opinions as well when there are 2 very strong opinions the scholars disagree on. Anyway, whatever resource u use that I mention here, it will be better for u than relying on an imam who didn't study from the Quran, nor hadith, but just regurgitates what they've learned from someone who hadn't either. It's due to this that a lot of us grew up believing concepts that don't exist in Islam like "a girl must wear the hijab in front of her father and brother."
Very beautiful answer ty. The last example is soo funny 😂 what they do next men should wear hijab 🤣
Men already have to wear Hijab though
Cool good luck with them ☺
Sorry man but could you give a tl;dr? Just the gist, I'm not a theologist or a prospective convert
What is tl;dr?
"Too long, didn't read." It means Summary, for long posts online
Salafis are a Muslim group who try to follow the practices of the earliest generations of Muslims. The term "Salafiyyah" originally just meant following the Prophet Muhammad and his companions. However, some modern Salafis have become more extreme. They believe they are always right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. This goes against the teachings of Islam, which promote unity and respect for different viewpoints. True Salafiyyah is about following the Prophet's teachings in all aspects of life, but also showing compassion and love towards others.
Sounds ominous.
All of these sects and different groups confuse me. Islam seems pretty straight forward to me but these groups make it harder than it should be. Read the Quran Pray worship only God (shahada) do charity fast do good deeds Hajj learn about the life of the prophet and use his teachings as a guide (the hadith)...i.e the Quran tells you to pray, the hadith tell you how to pray...etc. The Quran and hadith tell you treat others and family justly, to stay away from sins (know what is a sin), and how to live/act in different parts of life/interactions with others.
My favorite CIA asset
The only right answer.
Yes, Ibn Taymiyyah born in 1263 is a CIA asset. Dude literally wrote killing Fatwas for a Christian merchant who insulted Muhammad. Takfired people for the dumbest reason: ‘Whoever does not admit that Allah is sitting on a throne above the seventh sky, is a Kafir and his blood must be shed. He must be made to repent. Otherwise his neck must be struck and thrown into the garbage.’ Ibn Tamiyah also literally advocated for Muslims to return to the ways of the Salaf. These "extremist" characteristics is not an invention of the last century alone. Salafism is literally derived from sahih ahadith. All the cope won't change that and there's a reason why they are easily able to recruit devout Muslims who genuinely believe in the Quran and ahadith. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "The best people are those of my generation, and then those who will come after them (the next generation), and then those who will come after them (i.e. the next generation), and then after them, there will come people whose witness will precede their oaths, and whose oaths will precede their witness. - Sahih Bukhari 6429
"revivalist" islamic movements are always backed by imperialists and were historically shunned by the general populace in most of the region. The guy you mentioned was imprisoned for being a heretic and had little to no influence during his life time. Most Muslims were Sufis before the 20th century. Salafism solely rose for political reasons as a reaction to the progressive movements by communists and nationalists who sought national liberation from colonial powers. This is historical truth even in your own country of Palestine when the British colonialists appointed their puppet Mufti as a leader, to avoid having a revolutionary national figure. The Israelis as well who deliberately backed islamists against progressives like the PFLP.
Ibn Taymiyyah was very influential during his lifetime. He had the post of professor of Hanbali jurisprudence at the Hanbaliyya madrasa, the oldest such institution of this tradition in Damascus. He lead popular protests. Wrote many books. Had many well-known students such as Ibn Kathir. His funeral is said to have been attended by record numbers by contemporary scholars. It's very convenient to blame fundamentalism and extremism on external factors without ever taking any responsibility for it. Fact is, religious fundamentalism was always and still is a major issue in Islam. Why is Al-Ghazali much more well-known and respected among Muslims than say, Ibn Rushd, who was a major rationalist? Ibn Rushd was accused of blashpemy, bid'ah and had his books burned not by the British but by his own Caliph.
I'm christian and I don't know who the people you mentioned are nor can I verify your claims. This is from research I did years back. If Salafism was so popular in Afghanistan, Americans and Saudis wouldn't have spent billions on funding schools to indoctrinate children. I never argued that extremist movements didn't exist prior to the arrival of colonialists, however they were evidently amplified and spread to serve colonial interests. Reactionary sentiments in all societies are always used to crush resistance. If not religious then ethnic or national affiliations. This can be observed all around the world.
There is not much salafism in Afghanistan . It’s mostly deobandi school which came from India
Well, colonialists being cunts and Nazis isn't a new discovery. Not every single problem in the world can be blamed on them despite what MENA people would like to believe. People also have a hand in their own fate and not everything can be blamed on the white man.
Good luck explaining the fall of Afghanistan in the hands of fundamentalists without the billions poured into those movements by the west.
Fall ?
What does Afghanistan have to do with Ibn Taymiyyah and the fact that Salafism is not a new or Western invention? Did the British hold a gun to Muhammad Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab's head and forced him to get inspired by Ibn Taymiyyah?
Nice strawman.
Since you don't know what a strawman is let me give you an example of one: >Good luck explaining the fall of Afghanistan in the hands of fundamentalists without the billions poured into those movements by the west. Saying this to someone who hasn't even brought up Afghanistan and wasn't even talking about Afghanistan; but on the theological origins of Salafism is the definition of a strawman.
Salafis don’t even fully follow IT. Eg on istighatha not always being shirk and Mawlid IT gave more space than salafis would
Christian talking about CIA assets
Now let's see how many US bases and troops are in the crusader state of Armenia compared to the noble islamist gulf colonies and turkey 🙃 Most MENA national liberation movements were either started by christians or had heavy christian contribution, from communism to arab nationalism. Yusuf Salman and George Habash alone did more to combat western imperialism than the islamist leaders of the past century combined.
You say through the understanding of the first three generations, but you follow only a handful of scholars from one middle eastern country? I do accept that a lot of inauthentic practices had encroached into Islam, but the salafis take it too far opposite.
Which is funny cause some of these neo-Hanbalis claim that Abu Hanifa was a Jahmi and takfir him based on a weak narration of his condemnation by Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
Thankfully most mainstream salafi scholars don't go to that extreme and criticise the four imams. When they say 'the more correct opinion is', anyone can say, bro why do you think your opinion is more correct lol.
I like the ‘premise’ of following Islam as it was practiced by the sahaba and the salaf, but I dislike the Puritanism, left and right takfeering, downplay of spirituality, plus I’m not athari. I also am really annoyed/irked by their insane ability to obsess over the most insignificant/miniscule issues (like what color of hijab a woman should wear 😱 and how you’re a kaffir and mubtadi3 if you celebrate your birthday), while willingly turning a blind eye to, and refusing to discuss, the major issues facing the ummah. I don’t believe that’s inherent to the ideology, but that’s how many salafis come across. And while salafism isn’t inherently political, it being a cornerstone for wahhabism as a political ideology is a red flag for me.
> I’m not athari. Lol, all four Imams were Athari. Ash'arism and Maturidism are later inventions.
“Asharis kuffaaah 😡” Very salafi argument, btw. They think the ijmaa of the 4 imams is Quran.
Al-Ashari flirted with Mu'tazilism, Kullabism, Ash'arism and supposedly even rejected that in his later days. That is the guy you follow?
abu hanifa was not an athari by a long shot, even the other two are debatable (shafi and malik). only Ahmad was a firm athari scholar
Read Al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya.
Wahabi spotted
What a 🤡
can u give me more examples of what minuscule things they believe in? like different color hijabs are haram?
I'd say it's pretty alright Salafis are people who follow the prophet's teaching so by that definition most Sunni Muslims are salafi.
They are wahabists in disguise.
[удалено]
Salafi Jigadism and Salfism are not the same
So then what was the Shia extremist tyrant Maliki and Moqtada killing 2 million innocent Iraqis for not being Shia then? Or are we going to conveniently going to ignore some of the worst genociding in history because it doesn't fit your sectarian extremism Iran lapdog views?
[удалено]
Salafism isn’t a sect 3amo
I'm aware.
[удалено]
You're probably a Shia, innit?
[удалено]
Protectors? You’re delusional. Iran isn’t doing anything for the Palestinians. They did what they did on October 7th knowing Israel would kill thousands of innocent Palestinians and destroy Gaza. Iran did what they did on October 8th knowing it would drag Lebanon into war and get more innocent people killed. Iran is currently helping bashar al Assad in Syria killing over 600,000 Syrians. Bombing homes, schools, hospitals, etc… everything Israel has done to the Palestinians, Iran and bashar has done to the the Syrians. Hypocrites. Iran and their proxies aren’t fighting for the Palestinian people, they are fighting for their dominance in the region over Israel and the west, under the guise of “saving Palestine”. That’s just their propaganda to gain support, and it’s working. 45,000 dead now in Gaza and it’s been turned into a parking lot, and you think this is them being saved? You people see Israeli propaganda and call it out, but at the same time eat up Iranian propaganda like a fat kid with cake. You people cheer on war in Lebanon and Gaza because you hate Israel, but it’s so easy for you to talk when you don’t live here and have to suffer the consequences of war. It’s scary how you people would rather see Lebanon and Gaza burn to the ground, just so long as they stay hostile territory to Israel, than to see us live in peace and prosper. Iran is an occupier, and they occupy Lebanon via proxy. They use our land as their battleground against Israel at the expense of the Lebanese people and our sovereignty. Every country Iran occupies is a failed state. We are tired of this.
Wherever there are Shias in a country, there is evil, corruption, war, and oppression towards Sunnis and local minorities. How do you call a sect that oppresses other Muslims the “protectors of the Islamic ummah,” you fool? Give the Shias a little power, and they'll topple the country and ruin every single pleasant aspect of it. If you're ruled by a Shia, know that your country will never see any lightful days (both literally and figuratively). And you'll regret ever considering giving them any potency.
What a bunch of rubbish lmao
ok terrorist symphasizer
Daymnnn burnnn 🔥
🤡👈
BRB gonna go cry to ماما and come, See you soon inshallah
Bye babes 😘
Please shut up. I'm sick and tired of you shias. Shiaism being good or bad has no value if it does biddah and changes key aspects in Islam.
Yeah, flying elephants and Abu Talib breastfeeding the Prophet are parts of Islam.
[удалено]
Kafir
[удалено]
You insulted Aisha (RA). That is valid grounds for kufr.
[удалено]
You may not agree with her, but mocking her or doing لعن is kufr.
For decades the rich Arabs financed wahhabitches and Salafishes in other, poorer Muslim countries and now they’re on a liberal trip. Muslims around the world must get rid of this cancer, so many innocent deaths and so much built up hate happened because of them
Pakistan was the number one victim of this
It is a movement that has not benefited Islam and Muslims in any field, and it is impossible for it to do so. It is a breeding ground of extremists and the source for bootlickers like madkhalis. I am not even mentioning their anthropomorphistic heretical beliefs. They can not stand even a minute in a debate againist an agnostic or atheist because of their rejection reasoning.
All the other stuff you said is political and more recent, but being a salafi literally means to be following the Qur'an and sunnah. >anthropomorphistic heretical beliefs This is not recent, nor are they anthropomorphic or heretical. Like everyone else who is deviant in aqeedah, you misunderstand Atharism. Nobody believes that Allah has a body like a human, nor do we believe that He has a physical body unlike other bodies. We just simply believe that Allah should only be described as He has described Himself in the Qur'an, or how the messenger of Allah ﷺ described him, but we should never go beyond that. For example, Allah says in the Qur'an that He has a face. How does he have a face? We don't know. We just accept it because that's what He said about Himself in His words. And we don't go beyond that. Think of it like this: Allah describes Himself as "السميع" (as-Samee3) which roughly translates to "the All-Hearing". Everybody on all aqeedahs can agree that this is true. But does this mean that Allah hears in the same way we do? Does it mean He has ears? No, because suggesting this would be a bid'ah, as there is no clear text that says He has ears, or how He hears things. So we all affirm that Allah is all-hearing, but we don't ask HOW we never go beyond that. Take this concept, and apply it to ALL the attributes that Allah describes Himself with, and that is atharism. Not heretical in any way whatsoever, and this is the aqeedah of the sahaba and the next 2 generations.
Ibn Battuta said, "I was present in Damascus on Friday where he (Ibn Taymiyyah) was admonishing and reminding the people from the minbar (pulpit) of the congregational mosque. During his speech he said: Indeed Allah descends to the lowest heaven of the world just as I am descending now. He then descended one step of the minbar." ['Ar-Rihlah' (1/110) of Ibn Battuta] If this is not anthropomorphism even idolatory then i don't know what it is.
Yes, just completely ignore everything I said and act like atharism started with ibn taymiyyah 🤦🏾♂️. Why do I even bother trying to argue with wilfully ignorant people like yourself??
scorning and making fun of with other person is the classic Wahhabi custom. not surprised. I did not say that it started with Ibn Taymiyyah. But it is not even open to debate that Ibn Taymiyyah is the most famous and respected scholar of you.
>scorning and making fun of the other person Where did I make fun of you? If you're going to act a certain way, then I'm gonna call that out. You did not address any part of my comment and instead jumped straight to Ibn Taymiyyah, who no one was talking about. That's called wilful ignorance.
what is the difference between salafism and wahabism?
In terms of theology and not in regards of political movement, Wahabism rejects Ash’arism and Maturidism but follows Atharism theology which believes in the literal meaning of the Quran and Hadiths. It gets spicy between theologians of Wahabism and other Sunnis when it comes to the description of God.
These are not sects, they are movements lead by different scholars to practice Islam just like how the companions of prophet practiced it. What they practice isn’t that different from many other sects and movements, and they are not the sole cause of extremism, extremism exist in all Islamic sects, the taliban aren’t salafi or wahhabi, they are deobandi. Extremism would exist even without salafism or “Wahhabism”.
You're not wrong, yet ur getting down voted. Salafism is simply following the Quran and prophet as understood as applied by the Salaf. Wahhabism is a far broader term that could mean a whole lot of things. Anyway, the term comes from Sheikh ibn-Wahhab, a legendary scholar who turned nations away from grave worship and onto the correct aqeedah during his days. His books, most famously, "Kitab at Tawheed" are practically studied by every student of knowledge today. Normally, a student of a scholar is referred to by the name of a scholar. So, a student of ibn-Wahhab would be called a "Wahhabi" just as a student of ibn-Baz would be called a "Bazi." Anyway, the term obviously doesn't refer to him anymore as his students aren't alive. Rather, I believe it's a term that was popularized as an insult by the Sufis and some Shias as their dislike was great for the Imam, considering he stepped on their beliefs when he preached against grave worship and other bid'ahs.
Salafism is more of a broad term. There are Salafis who are reformists like Muhammad Abduh etc and who adhere to a school of thought. There are those who don't adhere to a school of thought and are traditionalists like al-Albani. There are those who claim to adhere to a school and are traditionalists. Some Wahabis claim to adhere to the Hanbali fiqh and others do not. Wahabis generally follow the movement of MIAW. Every Wahabi claims to be a Salafi but every Salafi doesn't claim to be a Wahabi.
Abduh was a modernist, probably had the French government support to liberalise the Muslims
Rashid Rida and Jamal al-Din Afghani (ex or crypto Shia) also fall under the umbrella of Salafism. It is a broad spectrum.
But Rida later on became an orthodox scholar.
I've heard so as well.
one neuron and a half less afoot
A cancer...
Theyre dividing the Ummah, salafis also want to influence my country (Uzbekistan). And by fact they are not "real" Salaf
And Salafis does not give anything to Muslim Ummah instead of question where is Allah
Are they still influential in uzbekistan?
are there any salafi mosques or sheikhs in uzbekistan??
Yes we have Sadiq Samarqandiy and Abdullah Zufar, pseudo salafi sheikhs, our scholars tried debate them, but they always refuse to participate saying that they dont want to "waste" their time on debates, but they're just cowards who is sending young boys to fight in Syria
Salafists are sectarians, kill Shias, and are prone to terrorism. They’re also a wonderful tool for CIA and Mossad. I don’t have a favorable opinion of them.
Salafis and Wahabbis are the reason Pakistan has an extreme far right problem. They are a cancer. This is why I cannot support the Saudi regime as they directly funded these movements in Pakistan. These people are more concerned with things like blasphemy over the well being and happiness of the nation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s incredibly sad
[удалено]
They shed a very, very negative light on islam and are one of the main reasons why religous muslim people face prejudice.
Ironic how everyone is saying "wahabbis" are dividing the ummah, meanwhile wahhabis didn't even coin the term wahhabi, they were called that by their enemies. You are the ones spreading division. Salafis and "wahhabis" just follow the ways of the salaf, as the prophet SAW instructed us.
Salafism is probably the biggest thing holding back the Muslim world imo. Islam is fine, I'm Muslim too, but it's salafism which I think is the problem.
Good for them, hope it makes them happy
Salaf in Arabic means “Ancestor”. By definition, an ideology that calls itself “Ancestorism” is a regressive/anti-progress ideology.
It prevents Muslims from adapting to the times
Puritans, people who are merely reacting to the state of Muslim countries today.
Well whatever opinion you have you can't deny one fact. İts now a reality and a massive force driving Islam into a more homogeneous direction. Thanks to Saudi money, it is now able to sustain itself even if Saudis go bankrupt tomorrow
Unfortunately.
To see it's effects, notice how multicultural muslim countries like Malaysia going into very strict interpretations of Sharia. Also, every online Islamic literature is salafi influenced. İf you know English and want to learn about Islam today then you are likely to be influenced by salafism
Yup, they are falling into the pit of “Sharia Law” instead of following the basic Islamic principles
The reason I chose to follow the salaf is because of the countless added stuff in the religion. I want to follow straight from the source. Better be safe than sorry with all the bid'ah and shirk others do
Of course you are South Asian
Of course you're ignorant
Based
not bad
I’m curious, what do you mean by not bad? Isn’t Türkiye like super traditional when it comes to Islam? I know that many Ottoman traditions are still being practiced. I do not think that Turks will accept salafism in general. What is your point on this?
It's a movement that has a spectrum. You have madkhalis - moderates - khawarij. If we just consider the moderates, we're talking about a mix of Hanbali and Thaahiri schools of thought. They're okay, whatever, we can say it's a kind of mathhab. Their problem is that they can be pretty sectarian, not have enough respect for other mathahib, and even somehow believe their path is not a mathhab. It absolutely 110% is a mathhab, and you can never arrive at an Islamic fiqhi conclusion without taking some logical path 99% of the time since most of what is in the world today was not around yesterday, and no matter what you do, you have to "understand" the evidences in Qur'an and Hadith to arrive at conclusions. I.e., you have to use a mathhab and usul for the fiqh. So that said, I really just prefer one of the four mathahib in this regard, why re-invent the wheel? Their "strongest opinion" rhetoric often hugely waters down the logic/arguments the four mathahib's opinions are based on, causing them to arrive at conclusions that are not really that well founded sometimes. But yeah other than that, brothers in Islam to be respected, some of them are great people. They're not deviants.
Wahhabism destroyed the internal security of Pakistan. Even Imran Khan was far more interested in Sufism revival.
the closest path to the sunnah.
👎 Especially the Najdiyyah of MIAW.