Assalaamu calaykum, As you may or may not have heard, a series of protests organized by various groups (mostly feminist, but not all) in Canada and abroad against the use of Islamic law (Shariah) in the province of Ontario (if I'm not mistaken). My (subjective) perception is that they're essentially anti-Islam, extremely "progressive," and ERRONEOUSLY regard the Shariah as a source of oppression towards women. After all, it's not all that bad (people can actually choose whether or not they want to abide by the Shariah). But of course, I may be mistaken. Does anyone care to share what they believe is behind this extremely vigorous reaction to Sharian in Canada? Please pitch in. Fii amaanillaah

Peace ukhtii Lexy, I thought I clarified it on my post already, but I'll clarify it again. Sister, I'm not sitting here and giving out fatwas. I'm no scholars (not even a student of knowledge), so I'm in no position to give my opinions. To remain objective, I refer to the sahaabah (and those who followed them in goodness) as well as classical scholars. So, re-read my post ukhtii, and you'll find that it wasn't my opinion, but it is indeed the SCHOLARS and sahaabah that are divided on this issue. Should you refuse to accept this without at least researching it and hold onto your opinion as the only valid opinion regarding this matter, then you are disregarding the opinion of the learned ones (respected scholars of the opposing view) and sahaabah. Remember that in matters like fiqh, there are issues where scholars have reached ijmaac, and issues where scholars are divided. At least acknowledge the other opinion. If you don't believe me, consult a learned student of knowledge and verify for yourself (after all ukhtii, I don't expect you to believe me, but at least verify my statements instead of flat out rejecting them). Wallaahu aclam. Fii amaanillaah

May the Salaam be upon you, and the Mercy of Allaah, and His Barakaat. I think the question was answered by Rashiid (he put it beautifully), I don't even know why this post is ongoing. Secondly, I'd love to mention an extremely important trait that the general Muslim body is lacking: critical thought. Some of these scholars may not be good communicators (or there may be a communication barrier between us [the unlearned] and they [the learned]), so if they make unclear statements like these, we should always ask them to clarify and specifically request examples (where possible), otherwise their explanations aren’t complete and can’t fully be understood. So how do they (the scholars) expect us to follow it? Another matter that we’re forgetting when establishing a ruling in Islam is al-waaqic or “the environment.†When some heated debates occur as a result of ONE scholarly opinion (where there is no ijmaac), we have to keep in mind that these scholars are living the beautiful life, they’re in a marvelous environment where they interact and share knowledge with the World’s top scholars. Many of them are NOT in the United States, or Australia, or the rest of the countries dominated by non-Muslims, and they CANNOT understand life in THIS envrionment. Thus, it is extremely easy for them to say: “you shouldn’t befriend the kuffaar,†when we are indeed surrounded by kuffaar (I was in such a position not too long ago, and there are so many more of our beloved brethren in this position). And what is this supposed to mean anyway? It is haraam to befriend the kuffaar? In what conditions? What does “befriending†mean? What interactions are allowed and disallowed in a “friendship†with the kuffaar? Does it mean TOTAL seclusion? You get the gist? It is THESE questions that we must ask when we receive such unclear fatwas that only consist of mere statements without explanations (NOTE: not all scholars are this unclear; there are so many fantastically concise scholars). Thus, we should rectify ourselves as an ummah: the followers should stop looking for one-sentence fatwas and demand elaborate explanations with specific examples. If we’re engineering students, we love examples to accompany every new concept we come across, but why do we neglect understanding Islam given its sheer importance? Why do we ‘fatwa-shop’ looking for unclear fatwas and fail to make the effort in understanding our deen? I hope I didn’t lose any of you, I’m a poor communicator myself, so forgive me. Ukhtee Lexy, your decision to cease interacting with the non-Muslims must be respected, as you have your eyes set on receiving Allaah’s mercy, and that is indeed a commendable act. But I hope you’ll understand that not every Muslim is blessed enough to have good Muslims around them. Also, regarding the matter of salaah (the one who neglects it is kaafir or not?), there is a difference of opinion amongst the scholars (and the sahaabah) on this particular issue. I personally believe that if I practice tarkus-salaah (leaving prayer), then I am indeed a kaafir, but this is our belief, and thus we must respect the opinions of the other noble salaf (and scholars) who either remained silent on this matter, or clearly indicated that tarkus-salaah doesn’t amount to kufr. Wallaau aclam. Fii amaanillaah

Bismillaah, wassalaamu calaykum One of our brother/sister said that “raw instinct†and “luck†was amongst the most important factors? I’m not sure if I read or understood that correctly, but raw instinct is most likely the worst factor that one can rely on (we are human beings, and thus almost always have either sinister or erroneous propensities, whether it be intentional or unintentional ïƒ but it is relying on Allaah’s guidance that we become honoured, blessed, and civilized). As for luck, akhuunaa Nur couldn’t have explained it any better, and I hope that concept is clear to all of us in shaa Allaah. Some of our fellow nomads listed some characters that we should particularly look for in a spouse, and piety or religiosity was mentioned (how beautiful a choice). The word “pious†has a very strong and comprehensive meaning in Islam, and I’m afraid to say that not too many Muslims realize that (because in addition to piety or religiosity, they include other factors). Many of these other factors (ex. Chastity, sound character, and intelligence) are traits that AUTOMATICALLY come along with a PIOUS/RELIGIOUS person. I use chastity because virginity shouldn’t ideally play a role in one’s quest for finding a pious lady; a deflowered woman who has taqwah isn’t any less chaste than a virgin woman. Remember that Islam isn’t just a religion like Christianity; it’s a way of life, so it encompasses much more than our life in the mosques. I also find that many of my dear nomad brethren exclusively define love in the emotional context, when love can also be defined in the objective context. Love—in the Islamic context—should be based on the person’s actions and speech. Therefore, “if you love a person for the for the sake of Allaah,†it simply means this person has such a beautiful character, and such a beautifully desirable speech as a result of total obedience to Allaah SWT and His prophet. Therefore, you cannot help but fall in love with them. Everything else (ex. Looks, specific personality traits, socioeconomic status, etc…) should truly be secondary. And it is placing these less important matters ahead of the fundamental matters (such as loving one for the sake of Allaah) that leads to many frail or broken marriages. The harsh truth is that many Muslims aren’t practicing Islam in its entirety (me included, and I hope you’ll make ducaa for me, O my beloved brethren), and thus it has become extremely difficult for the pious nomads amongst us to make the spouse decision-making process a complex and difficult one. If life was amidst a beautifully (ideal) Islamic environment, then love would be present both before and after the marriage because everyone would technically love themselves for the sake of Allaah. But it truly seems that in marriages that have survived, love was bred and successfully developed as a result of this matrimony (because it most cases, they got together for the wrong reasons in the first place). Wassalaamu calaa manittabacal hudaa! Fii amaanillaah

Jazaakallahu khayr Shams, Therefore, it is understood from your reply that all animals (including those that are killed by machines on the 'production lines' are also xaraam). If I have misinterpreted your statement, please object and kindly direct me to understand what exactly it was that you meant. To further elaborate on the "animal remains" part of my question, I am specifically asking whether or not it is xalaal to eat animals that ARE NOT grain fed (ex. the majority of the chickens and cattle that are on the market today are fed animal remains for protein, they are not fed grass or other grain product). Is the consumption of such animals (that aren't exclusively grain fed) xalaal in Islam? By that I mean to ask, have the scholars agreed upon the permissibility of this consumption, or is there a difference of opinion? IF there is a difference of opinion, which side did the majority of the scholarly community take? Your help is much appreciated akhi Shams. Fii amaanillaah

Assalaamu calaykum: Brother Rendez-vous, I appreciate your last post, it was very informative indeed. I must say this is surprising though, my shiite friend and I have never discussed these tenets (he would view many of the things you listed as utter shirk; we discussed more about the definition of ahlul-bayt). And these tenets also clearly clash with our aqeedah as well, but I really don't know how you'll be able to make a stubborn (and ignorant) shia abandon these beliefs (and I'm not referring to you OC_Girl), except that you would say "Lakum diinukum wa liya diin." Keep up the good work akhee. Fii amaanillaah

Peace Rendez-Vous, To answer your question, I didn't say that you went off topic brother. I totally understood your point when you said something to the effect of "there is no sunnism or shiism or salafism or sufism." But the statement itself is Romantic (i.e. it's an idealistic view of the Islamic situation today, and by Romantic, I mean idealistic... I didn't mean that you were introducing Romantic thrills akhi). All I said is that the circumstance we're currently in isn't a good one, we are indeed divided (as much as we may deny it). I was only calling all of you (assuming that you're NOT uneducated masses that lack critical thought) to discuss your differences in a more civilized, Islamic fashion. Remember that the Shiites claim they're Muslim, and so do we (ahlus-sunnah), and so do even the Ahmadis (Qadianis). I'm just saying let's set our emotions aside, recognize the fact that we're all different (i.e. we're not united, although we are supposed to be), and discuss our differences through diligent discussions as opposed to slander matches (and if you encounter ignorant people, simply avoid them, don't waste your breath on them). I don't know how many times I've said this, and it's only a simple message stored at the back of everyone's mind. O my dear bretheren, let's be more civilized. Akhi Rendez-vous, although I'm not a scholar, I've read (and consequently) know a great deal about the Shiite aqeedah. Truthfully speaking, there are some undesirable aspects to their aqeedah, but we must ultimately realize that we (being from ahlus-sunnah) already have a bias against their aqeedah. The same can also be said about them (they have a bias against our aqeedah too). I've been discussing the shia vs. sunni issue with a shiite friend of mine, for two years, and it was a very constructive and objective discussion, I assure you. But after two years of him presenting me with evidence (and vice versa), we both OBJECTIVELY came to the conclusion that this is an issue that goes all the back to the times of the sahaabah, and therefore people like he and I cannot undertake such a complex discussion unless and until we've become complete scholars (i.e. able to assess ahaadeeth, know the principle of tafseer, etc...). (From now on, I'll be addressing the general you, and I don't intend to single you out brother Rendez-vous. And the advice I'm giving everyone here also applies to me, as I try to be nothing more than a humble servant of Allaah SWT). The shia vs. sunni issue isn't to be likened with other intra-sunni issues such as: how long should one's beard be? Or when does your wudhu break? These issues are a bit easier to assess by us because we share approximately the same hadith appraisal system (i.e. we all accept Bukhai, Muslim, Shawkaani, Ibn Khuzaimah, etc... because we're "sunni"). But debating with shiites is especially difficult (as objective as they may be) because their hadith system isn't as organized and developped as that of the ahlus-sunnah. They have usuul al-kaafi, for instance, and when you try to use ahaadeeth from their ahaadeeth books to disprove their aqeedah, they say: "Unlike you sunnis, we don't have a "sahiih" hadith book." It seems like they're hiding behind their underdevelopped hadith system, but it would be unfair to categorically make such a conclusion (because only Allaah knows what's in their hearts). For anyone who's not a shiite to prove the shiite aqeedah wrong, it would simply be a bit too subjective to do so from the sunni perspective. It would be like proving the bible wrong using the Quran, the Christian would tell you "I don't believe in the Quran, so why are you even bothering proving my holy bible wrong with something I don't even believe in?" I'm not saying that proving the shiites wrong can't be done, but it CAN ONLY be done if you yourselves become scholars. And if you are in a situation like myself (i.e. where I'm not in the position of become a scholar anytime soon), then we follow our scholars' opinions regarding the shiites (and the same holds for the shiites). And once we do that, what do we find? We find that many (not all) scholars from both sides have denounced each other as heretics and apostates. We have no choice but to either follow our scholars or remain silent, and if you don't want to do either, then AT LEAST don't blindly slander the shiites (or anyone else for that matter) blindly. No matter how deviant that person (who you're slandering) might be, they will never accept your advice because of the way you're going about it. Be kind, and follow the Quran's advice on how to make da'wah to everyone, including the shiites (with whom we share many things in common compared to the Christian, Hindu, and the Jewish peoples). I'm sorry for the lengthy reply, but I didn't want to post my subjective view of the shiites and disintegrate their adqeedah in a vicious manner. I'm from the ahlus-sunnah, and thus my creed is very distinct from theirs, but I don't need to manifest it so as to create animosity between us. I realize (and they should too) that we're different in many regards, and similar in other regards. The reason why I refrain from fueling heated debates is because I believe we have (shiites and sunnis alike) a common foe: those who want to demean the Quran and render it a meaningless book to be shelved and dusted rather than actually applying it. I will also call on you to remember that the enemies of Islaam usually make no distinction between sunni and shia: they see veiled women, bearded men, praying and fasting people. I don't mean to be idealistic here, this is the harsh reality. So let's "agree to disagree" on these heated issues, and ONLY discuss them in a scholarly manner (and I've barely seen anyone approaching these issues in a sensible manner except for the gifted few). Instead, let's be creative and discuss things such as how we can eradicate the evils in our houses, how to reach the hearts of our family members (many of whom aren't strictly adhering the Quran and Sunnah), how to purify ourselves, and most importantly: how to resolve our differences and unite under one banner. We all know the root cause of these problems is lack of concrete knowledge; so let's bring knowledge and wisdom back. Unless and until we do that, you will devour yourselves to death (this is exactly what's happening in the Muslim world) and no good will come out of it (i.e. remember that slander matches, which are prevalant here, won't do any good at all). I don't want to repeat the same thing over and over as you're all probably tired of it, but I hope you understand the importance of the message I try to convey. Lastly, I want to again remind you that this advice applies to all of us, including myself (we're servants of the most merciful). Wassalaamu calaykum

Assalaamu Calaykum: Dear Rendez-vous, let's not be romantic or idealistic. There ARE such things as shiism and sunnism, if you want to call it that. There is sectarianism in Islaam, and that is quite unfortunate. The harsh reality of things is that we (sunnis and shiites) are different, but we think that our sect or group is the saved sect. That is the mentality of a blind follower (salafis included, there are many of them who are blind, whether they like it or not). I will give all of you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're all critical thinkers. In that case, you mustn't impose your opinions on others. We are not learned, and what little knowledge we may have is used to formulate OUR opinion on various matters; thus, as objective people, we must always recognize that there is another side (or view) to most issues. Unless we're discussing specific Islamic principles such as the compulsory nature of Salaah, or the oneness of Allaah SWT, you MUST ALL realize that there is usually a split between the scholars on an enormous range of issues. Moreover, these issues may be minor (such as differences between schools of Islamic jurisprudence: ex. Shafi vs. hanafi differences) where both sides recognizes their differences, and they still see themselves as being inside the fold of ahlus-sunnah. Other issues are major, such as the question of Allaah's SWT nature (and His whereabouts). These differences are very real, and we must discuss them with great delicacy whilst keeping in mind the severe limitations of our knowledge. And when we discuss these issues, we shouldn't be one sided, and most importantly, we must always go back to our scholars (I'm not talking about Albani and co., but I'm talking about great scholars of repute such as Imaam Zuhri, Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, Imaam Nawawi, etc... and the list goes on and on). Of course, I don' mean to take anything away from Shaykh Albani, but he's a contemporary scholar, and when discussing issues as important as Tawheed and other Islamic PRINCIPLES (not petty issues), we must refer back to the Sahabah and the CLASSICAL (not contemporary) scholars. Therefore, let's not be romantic inshaa Allaah, there are brothers and sisters from different groups, each carrying their opinion. What is important is avoiding the road of ignorance by presenting opinion as fact, or being opinionated rather than seeking the concensus or the CLASSICAL scholars (not just one or two of them, but MANY of them). I hope I was a bit clearer. Remember to respect one another inshaa Allaah, because slander matches only show how disgustingly biased one may be. Wassalaamu calaa manit-tabacal hudaa!

Peace be upon us all, It's funny to see that the "salafi" issue has been brought back to life here again when the title of the thread clearly pertains to Shiites. My fellow bretheren, when I read your posts, it seems as though you're biting each other's heads off! Subhaanallaah, where is the hikmah? Do we not know that in Islaam, we deal with the sincere seeker of knowledge in the best of manners, and we should avoid the ignorant ones (those who are extremely stubborn and unwilling to listen, even if the sweetest of words are uttered to them). Why have we become those who were referred to by Allaah SWT so often, those who "argue and quarrel about Allaah SWT without knowledge?" I will urge you my dear bretheren (particularly Salafi da'wah and Viking) to take a step back and re-read your posts. Even if you ARE right (although most of you have almost no sense of impartiality whatsoever), do you really think that was the correct way to speak to a fellow brother or sister? Change your tone, and you will see a difference in the reaction of your brother. Don't you know that Allaah SWT has said:"And not alike are the good and the evil. Repel (evil) with what is best, when lo! he between whom and you was enmity would be as if he were a warm friend!" (41:34). I hope that we will fear Allaah SWT and propagate his deen in the best of manners. I will also advise our bretheren to follow the example of bint abee saeed, who--despite the fact the she openly has her opinions--doesn't forcefully impose them on others and refrains from commenting on matters which aren't known to her. Unfortunately, this board is full of brothers and sisters from different sects that so ardently believe they are upon the right path, and propagate their message in a very forceful and literarily violent fashion. Let's take a step back, and exchange our knowledge in the most objective and civilized of ways. One last thing: brother Viking, you have a very twisted view of salafiyyah. Although almost every Islamic sect/movement (or whatever you wish to call it) has their fair share of shortcomings, the salafiyah were not the first ones to declare the following: 1) Obligation of the beard for Muslim men (and the shaving of their mustaches). 2) Obbligation for Muslim men to attend congregational prayers (if and only if they are at a distance such that they can hear the aadhaan. Scholars are divided as to how that should be applied here in the West, but in countries where the aadhaan is called in the open, there is no difference of opinion). Brother, these things are so obvious that I won't bother giving you ahaadeeth (because I fear that you may ask me for the general picture of the issue instead of picking and choosing ahaadeeth. And I would respect you if you asked me for the clearer picture and the complete pool of evidence pertaining to these issues. But since we're both not scholars, I will advise you to see what the overwhelming majority of the classical scholars have said regarding these two issues). It's common knowledge brother (but liberal/progressive Muslims have taught us otherwise). These are also a matters agreed upon by the 4 schools of jurisprudence (and not specific to the salafiyah). As for the salafiyah being a movement that supports despots such as the Saudi kings, I don't know the stance of the salafiyah and thus wish to not comment. In fact, since you're more familiar with this issue than I, will you be so kind to enlighten me in this matter (for the sake of not going off topic and having slander matches with each other, I'd rather discuss this in privately brother, for I do not want to cause fitnah. Our aim is to make piece between our bretheren and bridge the gaps rather than constantly denounce one another). I also hope that you will elucidate the differences between the present-day Saudi hereditary dynasty, and all of the other Islamic dynasties (such as the Ottomans, Abbasids, Ummayads [with the notable exception of Uman bin Abdul Aziz] and Safavids)that "hid" behind Islam just like the Saudis. I hope that you will all take my advice seriously: deal with your brethen with kindness, and avoid the ignorant ones inshaAllah. Allaah SWT said: "And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it." Wassalaamu calaa manittabacal hudaa

Assalaamu calaykum: I ask Allaah to grant you an infinite amount of reward. I found these helpful, jazaakumullaahu khayr for your assistance. Wassalaamu calaa manittabacal hudaa.

Assalaamu Calaykum Wa Raxmatullaahi Wa Baraatuh, Bismillaah: I thank all those sisters and brothers who've helped me (and helped each other) on this board. I hope that you'll be able to sincerely help me by answering me (to the best of your ability) the following question: What type of meat is considered halaal? I'm looking for a complete answer here, specifically one that includes issues such as eating the meat of: 1) Animals that were NOT killed by human beings 2) Animals that have been fed animal remains (i.e. NOT grain fed, for instance). I do not mean to cause fitnah by posing this question, thus I only intend on receiving scholarly and accurate answers from those who are very familiar with this issue. This means no partial/selective answers and no opinion (unless it's from a respected scholar). And even if it is from a respected (peer-acknowledged scholar), please indicate whether or not his peers agree with him/her or disapprove of his/her fatwah. You can see how much of a complete picture I'm looking for (because we all know scholars are divided on this issue), so no one-sided answers please. Jazaakumullaahu khayr, Wassalaamu calaykum

Peace be upon you all, and the Mercy of Allah SWT, I am hoping that you can help me on this inshaa Allaah. I have a younger brother who is approaching the age of 5, and I want to start him on sound and structured Islamic education (because I live pretty far from any competent Islamic centre). So what books/websites do you brother and sister recommend that I visit/purchase that is specifically designed for this age-group? I'm looking for book(s) that are easy to follow that can be easily taught to kids of this age group. Your help is much appreciated inshaa Allaah. Assalaamu calaykum

May the Peace and Mercy of Allah SWT be upon us all, Bismillaah, Brother, I totally agree with your sentiments towards M. Kemal (I personally believe no sane Muslim who had an atom's worth of love for Islam would ever take such concrete steps to eliminate Islam like that). But we must try to be as objective as possible. We all know that the Ottomans, as well as the Ummayads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Safavids were all dynasties (i.e. they made the "caliphate" hereditary as opposed to appointing a righteous personality that is fit to lead the Muslims). It is also true that the Ottoman Empire was on a lengthy period of decline after Suleiman the magnificent (due to increased internal corruption). As a Muslim, I love the sharia with all my heart, and I would consider living in a nation where sharia is fairly implemented no less than a dream come true. But brother (assuming that you despise the Saudis just as many Muslims do, including myself), why would we speak so highly of the Ottomans as though they were the caretakers of the faith when in fact they were in fact a dynasty that saw much internal corruption? How do we know that they (the Ottomans) were just rulers that were saintly, and tried their best to live and rule by the sharia? How do we know that they were no different the present-day Saudi regime? My view of the Ottomans may be totally erroneous, but with the little history I know, and the little knowledge I have about the contemporary Saudi regime, I really see no significant difference between the two (notwithstanding the conspiracy theories about the existence and functions of the today's Saudis, because conspiracy theories aren't always reliable). I believe we'll all agree that the best example of an Islamic community was existent at the time of the Prophet (SAW) and the his (SAW) four successors. If my view is historically incorrect, you're most welcome to correct me inshaa Allaah (in an Islamically and scholarly fashion, of course). Wassalaamu calaa manit-tabacal hudaa

Assalaamu alaykum to all, I don't know why everyone is getting so defensive about Nur. Perhaps it is because you all have known Nur so long before I, and thus maybe has a 'shady' past with him? Ikhwaan, it-taqillaah! Brothers and sisters, can't you see the brother clearly said that he reserves the right to make mistakes, just like the rest of us? Any simple comment that is made can be SUBJECTIVELY MISinterpreted as a personal attack, so please let's not make assumptions that one is personally attacking another for that is suspicion, and suspicion in many cases is a sin. To be quite honest, I agree with almost every point brother Nur said because, for those of you who haven't noticed, all he is asking for is sound pieces of evidence before statements about Islaam are made. He is also tirelessly emphasizing the importance of the Arabic language. The importance of the Arabic language can't be denied by any Muslim who has an objective, critical mind. It's just quite sad the majority of the Muslims don't. Anyone who is asked a simple question (irrespective of how sinister you may think Nur is by asking these questions) must answer them in honesty. I'm not well-versed with Arabic, and I have no shame in saying that (except for the shame I feel because I know Allaah expects more from me as a Muslim). Thus, because no one is qualified enough to discuss INDEPTH any of these highly controversial issues, the best way to go about them is to voice your opinion according to that of a scholar's (since he or she has done the research and earned the respect and credibility of his or her peers). What is important to realize is that these highly controversial issues have been discussed by MANY SCHOLARS that were respected, and these respected scholars were on both sides of the issue. Of course, it only makes sense that one of the sides of these issues is wrong, and that the other one is correct, or that they may be both correct. So if these scholars were able to beautifully discuss these heated topics, why do we even bother coming onto these forums and complain that we're being personally attacked, or personally attacking others. Respect the brothers and sisters that invite you to an educational and constructive discussion. If you find that these discussions are full of insults (we're not talking about sincere statements that may be misterpreted, but if you actually see someone deliberately destroying you), then your job as a Muslim is to follow Allaah's SWT commandment in the Qur'aan: "And the servants of the Beneficent Allah are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace." (25:63) This beautiful verse clearly tells us that if we encounter sinister people who are purely ignorant, and have no interest in getting out of their ignorance (and are more interested in protecting their image and feed their ego), then we should simply say peace to them and avoid them at all costs. I don't know the hearts of the people here, but I assume by default that Nur and Sakina are sincere people (with differential views), so I will advise them both to be purely objective in discussing these sources. Sakina, this means that if you're asked questions about sources, please answer them without assuming you're being personally attacked. If you feel that you're personally being attacked and you feel that there is a better way to be approached, then advise them of that better way in order to make things more smooth in the future. And Nur, this means that you will approach your brothers and sisters more compasssionately. I know that you're sincere, and the messages in your posts are true, but they can easily be misinterpreted by subjective people and thus they are provocative to many (although the objective person sees nothing wrong with them). All I'm saying is make your statements more sweet so that pearls may be coming out of your mouth (I see pearls indeed, but it appears that many of our bretheren see only silver coming out). Brothers and sisters, please accept my apoligies if I can't reply to your posts as I have limited access to the internet. While I'm away, I hope love prevails. Wassalaamu calaykum

Salaam, my dear bretheren! I'm sorry for the long absence. This week is a tough week of exams for me, and won't be able to actively participate on the forum. In this very short message of mine, I would like to express the beauty with which all of you have spoken (bint abee saeed, Sakian, Sahal, and Mizz_S.lander). We have taken control of our souls, and come together for the sake of Allaah SWT and decided to discuss our differences in the most wise and peaceful of manners. Sakinah, I would also like to let you know (if you don't already know it) that the belief of Allaah's attributes that the 'salafi' (again, I'm using this loosely) believes in isn't something new that was brought by the 'modern salafi movement' but it was also held by the great Shaykh Axmad bin Xanbal (which must earn at least respect--not necessarily approval--from the rest of the Muslim ummah). I can't provide the proofs for you right now as I'm extremely busy and would require hours upon hours of research and authentic verification (which would require me to visit scholars), but I'm sure our sincere sister bint abee saeed can kindly refer you to the appropriate pieces of evidence regarding Imaam Axmad's beliefs. Inshaa Allaah, I hope that we too are following the stupendous message in the aayah of Suuratun-Naxl, as there is no other efficient way of conveying the truth. Keep it up inshaa Allaah. Assalaamu calaykum

Salaam to all: Alxamdullillaah, now at least we're becoming more civilized in discussing these controversial issues. Although no one has openly admitted their love for one another, I hope that that they have done so in their hearts. But I remind you that we have no ego to feed, we are Muslims and thus should have no pride whatsoever. I openly proclaim my love to all of you Muslims who are sincerely trying to attain jannah, and those who are tirelessly working to advance our deen by strengthening our unity. I hope this is a given for all of your as well. My beloved sister Sakina, I understand your urge to find out who M. Cabdul Wahhaab is because he is a 'scholar' preaching Islaam. I understood that point. What I DON'T understand, however, is why you're so persistent in trying to find out who he is when ALL you need to know is that he contributed to Islaam with regards to tawxiid. I asked you before, and I'll ask you again to ask your scholars (the sincere ones who will respect the opposing opinion so long as they're wihin the bounds of Islaam) regarding his most famous work, Kitaabut-tawxiid, and see what they say regarding it. If they say that it has nothing against Islaam, and that it's a good book to reading regarding tawxiid, then take their advice and stop trying to find out who he is and what he did, and where he erred, etc... If you want to find that out for yourself, then be my guest. But please don't provoke the 'salafis' by discrediting him and exposing his mistakes and thus causing fitnah. Sure, he made mistakes, and it's true that we should acknowledge his mistakes. But as a wise Muslim, you have the responsibility to forsee that not every salafi is wise, and thus they will respond with emotion when you provoke them by attacking their figures they respect. That's not wise at all, so let's keep the peace and leave the controversy out UNLESS we're willing to discuss these manners in a civilized fashion. Imagine just how foolish I would be to enter upon a Xanafi masjid, and discuss certain weaknesses of Imaam Abuu Xaniifah... They would fiercy react to that (despite the fact that Imaam Abuu Xaniifah had some weaknesses). But do you see how foolish it is for me to bring that up, especially when it isn't even crucial to Islaam? All that should concern me is that Imaam Abuu Xaniifah made enormous contributions to Islaam (as have many scholars), and we should leave it at that inshaa Allaah. Similarly, Kitaabut-tawxiid is positive contribution to Islaam, so let's leave any other insignificant details out (so let's stop trying to find out who he is because he was a 'scholar'.... we know that his work is acknowledged by the scholarly community, so let's leave it at that inshaa Allaah). That is what I meant when I said: "Let's stop talking about Shaykh X and Shaykh Y and his mistakes and what not." Hope this is more clear inshaa Allaah. Please sister Sakina, please don't misunderstand my statements. I completely respect your urge to find out about who M. Cabdul Wahhaab is, but there is a greater issue at hand... the issue of unity. Let's not be divided because of salafiya or bin Cabdul Wahhaab or anything else that is this insignificant COMPARED to the greater issues. If we were talking about figures such as Mizra Ghulam Ahmed who founded the Qadiyani religion, then that would be a totally different story. But keep in mind that bin Cabdul Wahhaab didn't come with a different religion, as Mizra Ghulam Ahmed did. I hope this thread ends here because it has been the cause of unnecessary division between us. Let's remember the famous hadiith: "There are seven whom Allaah will shade in His Shade on the Day when there is no shade except His Shade" and among them are those who "love each other for Allaah’s sake, meeting for that and parting upon that." As since as you all are, I don't think we have done that at all. Let's end this thread here and discuss other issues that are more beneficial and productive inshaa Allaah. Was-salaamu calaa manit-tabacal hudaa!

Salaam Mizz_S.lander: Ukhtee, you completely misunderstood me. But I will respect your right to disagree. First of all, I want you to show me where I'm belittling M. Cabdul Wahhaab. I haven't done so in any way, shape, or form. I just said that it's ok to disagree with ASPECTS of his actions, or his sayings. I never said that Kitaabut-tawxiid was full of nonsense ukhtee. Please carefully read my statements and please read them with objectivity and set emotions aside for a second inshaa Allaah. Secondly, we as Muslims have a duty to unite and abandon anything (especially petty things) that will weaken our unity. If you look at the later sentences, you'll see that my eludication of that phrase (i.e. we should abandon anything that weakens our unity) refers to "Qatciyyaat" which are matters that are CLEAR CUT and are not open for DISCUSSION and RATIONAL ANALYSIS. That's why I cited an example by specifically referring to the fact that WE'RE NOT KUFFAAR or MUSHRIKIIN or we haven't done anything GROSSLY ERRONEOUS, so then why are we allowing for matters of relatively lesser importance (ex. discussing the greatness of M. Cabdul Wahhaab) get in between us? That's all I asked. I will also call on you to remember a very important concept in Islaam: the concept that dictates IF you are trying to forbid evil, and in the process of forbidding that evil (or by forbidding that evil) you cause a GREATER evil, then it becomes xaraam for you to forbid that initial evil (I know that was confusing, but that's the most concise way I could put it). I think most of you know what I'm talking about with respect to that concept. So what is a greater evil? Stirring controversy by discussing the 'greatness of M. Cabdul Wahaab' with fellow Muslims who don't agree with you OR just leaving that aside for now and discussing more important issues such as WHY WE'RE SO DIVIDED OVER THESE RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT ISSUES? By reiterating M. Cabdul Wahhab's greatness makes the confused 'salafi' (and I don't mean you Mizz_S.lander) NO DIFFERENT from the Xanafi who says: "Shaykh Abuu Xaniifah is great, and he didn't do anything wrong, blah blah blah." The point is: WHO CARES about whether or not these scholars erred or not. We know they're humans beings, and they all are capable or erring, so let's leave it at that. Besides, we're not amongst the people of knowledge, so we should especially avoid controversial issues that have no CRUCIAL relevance to Islaam. There are sisters who walk without xijaab on the streets THINKING xijaab is not waajib, there are parents out there who don't teach their children salaah, there are brothers who don't know how to lower their gazes and think that is halaal, there are SO MANY MUSLIMS out there who don't know the essence of the Qur'aan or how to approach it in order to learn from it! So all I'm saying is why don't we dicuss these more important issues, thereby increasing our unity (since we share a common position regarding these ever-so-important matters)? That is what I meant by abandoning anything (with specific reference to less important issues) that will divide our unity. Perhaps the following examples will clarify exactly what I mean to say: The debate of xijaab and its conditions can be traced back to the times of the Saxaabah themselves. From the period of time, until today, respected scholars have come and gone, each with differential positions on this issue. If THEY, our marvellous scholars, haven't been able to agree AND EXPLICITLY set that aside to discuss the more important issues of Islaam, WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE 1000 TIMES LESS QUALIFIED THAN THEY ARE? Similarly, let's stop talking about Shaykh X and Shaykh Y and how great he is and how erroneous he is and what not. That will do us no good. That is what destroyed the past nations, and that's what will destroy us now (if we're not already destroyed, but I'll leave that up to you to decide). Now if we're discussing issues such as the coming of another prophet after the seal of prophets (SAW), THEN we can stand up for the truth, and THEN can we be considered strangers. The same applies in the case of Zinaa and alcohol and other matters that have been defined as QATCIYYAAT. If they're not Qatciyyaat, then do your part O my fellow Muslims and set our differences aside, or rather discuss them through constructive discussions rather than bashing each other for such petty issues. I hope I have made myself more clear. Wassalaamu calaykum

Assalaamu calaykum: Thank you sister (Mizz_S.lander). This ducaa should be made for all of us inshaa Allaah as we're all Muslims and are seeking the Mercy of Allaah SWT. I just wanted to clarify a few of the points I have made in my previous post. For those who thought I was implying that you SHOULDN'T have a problem with Cabdul Wahhaab: I can only say that I'm affraid you're wrong (sorry for the poor phrasing if that's what mislead you). If you have a problem with M. Cabdul Wahhaab, I respect that (as everyone is entitled to their own opinions since we reside in Western nations). All I ask of you, my dear sister Sakina, is that you ask yourself why you have a problem with him. If you find legitimate reasons, then you have every right to disagree with certain aspects of what he's done, or what he's said, etc... I am not here to defend him. Remember that you and I (and everyone on this site, I hope) shares a collective duty and responsibility to defend and protect the Qur'aan and sunnah. That's what we have in common, so let's bridge the gap between us by discussing what is common (and thus important) rather than less important issues such as Muxammad bin Abdul Wahhaab. When I saw the first post and then read the subsequent posts of this topic, I saw a gigantic disaster. Allaah knows best whether or not the author of this topic has deliberately caused fitnah between the Muslims (such as you and I, Sakina, and Sahal, and Mizz_S.lander, and the rest of us). Since I don't know the contents of one's heart, I will assume (by default) that the author has unwillingly and mistakenly put up the article and thus wasn't aware of the subsequent problems it would create. I whole-heartedly believe that no evil intentions resided in her heart, and that this mess was rather unforseeable. To all my brothers and sisters, let's look beyond the word 'salafi' and rather focus on our 'MUSLIM' brothers and sisters. If we're so willing to let Shaytaan divide us in this pitiful approach of his, then we are nothing but failures, all of us. But I trust that we're not failures. When I read your comments (most of you), I hear a sincere voice, a soul that loves Allaah SWT and his Prophet and holds Islaam dearer than anything else. Since we have that in common, let's increase our unity, and let's abandon ANYTHING that may weaken our unity. These are amongst the many things that will weaken our unity, and look at how trivial it is! Have any of us transgressed out limits to the point that we have become kuffaar? Of course not. And if we need to discuss such sensitive issues, then let it be done in the most respectful of ways, for the sake of our unity and love for one another (just for the sake of Allaah SWT). I know that all of that I have said is nothing new. But reminder is exceptionally beneficial to humans since it is our nature to forget. Thus Allaah SWT has said: "And remind! For verily, the reminding profits the believers!" (51:55). I hope we'll stop being hostile to each other and start discussing with each other in a constructive fashion, inshaa Allaah. Sahal, Mizz_S.lander, Sakina and the rest of our wonderful bretheren: let's love each other now, will we? Wassalaamu calaykum.

Assalaamu calaykum wa raxmatullaahi wa barakaatuh, Sakina, I respect your right to question (not deny) anything that doesn't make total sense to you, and ask for clarifications and evidence where the need may arise. But I still don't understand what being a salafi has ANYTHING to do with Muxammad bin Cabdul Wahhaab and the Saudi family. Can't you take what the sister told you? Wasn't her statement clear enough, her statement that describes her care for the Qur'aan and sunnah and nothing else? If you call yourself Shaafici, Maaliki, Tabliighi, etc... that is besides the point. And similarly, if someone calls himself or is called a salafi, that is also besides the point. All the matters is for one to follow Islaam = Qur'aan & Sunnah. Haven't you ever seen a God-fearing, pious, lovely salafi people? God knows where you live and who you live with, perhaps with monsters who call themselves salafis but don't know anything about what the true 'salafis' call for. Again, I must reiterate the fact that I'm using the term 'salafi' for convenience, it's a loose term which I am currently using to describe people who don't completely ascribe themselves to one madh'hab, or don't believe in a 'middle man' when they're making ducaa to Allaah SWT (i.e. they call upon Allaah SWT alone), etc... So don't generalize for everyone ukhtee, don't demean the rest of the 'salafis' in the World just because you came across some few bad apples. Remember that doing that isn't the least bit fair. There are bad apples everywhere, and that's a fact that can't be ignored by anyone with a sane mind. As for your questions, they're quite irrelevant (please don't take offense to this, as I don't mean to offend you at all). I don't see what the Saudi state has anything to do with the 'salafis.' In fact, I don't see what the Saudi state has anything to do with Islaam whatsoever?!?! I will call on you to carefully analyze this following beautiful verse, where Allaah SWT describes one of the crucial traits of ULUL ALBAAB, or the PEOPLE OF UNDERSTANDING: "Those who listen to the word, THEN FOLLOW THE BEST THEREOF; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the PEOPLE of understanding." Just because I chose to read Abdul Wahhaab's book on Tawxiid doesn't make me is slave, nor does it mean that I must pledge my allegiance to him. The man is only human, as he commits mistakes, and so does the rest of humankind. The PEOPLE OF UNDERSTANDING read works like these (Kitaabut-tawxiid) with a critical mentality, ready to FILTER ANYTHING that goes against the Qur'aan and the sunnah, because Allaah SWT said: "Those who listen to the word, then follow THE BEST THEREOF." Talk to any sound scholar who has knowledge about tawxiid, and inquire about this book authored about Abdul Wahhaab. They may hate him with a fierce passion, but they will acknowledge that it's a good book that teaches any Muslims the essentials of Tawxiid. I will call on you to remember that way before the Saudi state was created, great scholars that were respected by Islam's intellectual community (Ibn Katheer, author of one of the greatest tafseer compilations, and a countless number of muxadditheen such as Shawkaani, Axmad ibn Xanbal, Ibn al-Qayyim, etc...) would now be referred to people like you as 'wahhabis' but the truth is they had nothing to do with Muxammad bin Aabdul Wahhaab. Also, a group that called themselves Ahlud Hadiith was on the Indian subcontinent centuries before the Saudi state was created and they would ALSO be classified as 'wahhabis' by people such as yourself. In fact, some historians say that it was they that brought the shariicah into India/Pakistan because, before then, only extreme forms of sufism (where people would just wander into the woods, seclude themselves from the community, etc...) where being practised, but this has divided the historians as not all of them agree with this view. Nevertheless, the point is that 'SALAFIS' HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SAUDI STATE, so why are you asking these irrelevant questions my dear sister? Now do you see that this 'wahhabism' is just a derogatory term? Now do you see that this isn't a a new madh'hab? Only if you knew more salafis, you would see that many of them actually follow one of the 4 great imaams in all aspects except for the issues where clear evidence from the sunnah supercedes the opinion of a scholar. I will kindly advise you to look into the WHOLE PICTURE of Islamic history, not just the bits and pieces thereof you appear to be inviting us to explore. I will also kindly ask you to get to know more salafis, and you are bound to meet the good ones inshaa Allaah. The good ones won't even call themselves salafis, because it's not accurate to call a Muslim anything other than 'Muslim.' Again, I used this term loosely, so please take careful note of that. Generalizations based on the bad apples is nothing short of ignorance, so I hope you're not doing that inshaa Allaah. And to answer your question: "Whether or not Abdul Wahhaab had anything to do with the Saudi state or not is none of my concern. If you studied your history, and know with certainty that objective historians collectively agree this is true, then so be it. But I still don't see how this has anything to do with me as a Muslim. I don't know anything about Saudi Arabia, and I don't care to know anything about it. I only care about the two holy cities, and besides that, I view the Saudi state no better than the Pakistani, Indian, Somali, Sudani, or any other state in the world." Hope that answered your questions. I'll leave you (not just you Sakina, but all of us) with a reminder regarding the dangers of baseless and groundless generalizations (which are nothing short of suspicions): Allaah SWT said, "O you who believe! avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is a sin" (49:12). The lesson here is, unless we're sure of something, and our lives doesn't depend on it, we should be silent regarding that matter. We're not sure that every 'salafi' is the monster you have probably met, just as I am not sure every 'shaafici' is the ***** I have met, so I can't assume (and thus shouldn't assume) that every 'shaafici' or 'salafi' is of such and such a type. Wassalaamu calaykum.

Akhee Sahal, I will remind you of the following verse. "Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner." I hope that you will adhere to message presented in this aayah inshaa Allaah. Please don't use vulgar language and demean people, you will never be able to reach them even if you tell the truth. With regards to the points posted, I don't know who this Shaykh is, and I don't know why he was so bold to proclaim this for all the Muslims. I don't know why anyone will deny that Saudia Arabia is ruled by an extremely corrupt group of people, and Allaah is well-aware of what they're doing. But please don't use this to generalize for all the 'salafis'... If you do this, then you're guilty of the ignorance like that of the western media when they refer to a sister wearing niqaab or a brother that has a beard as a fundamentalist (and they use fundamentalist and extremist interchangeably). So please be careful about the generalization. Jazaakallaahu khayr, Was-salaamu calaa manit-tabacal hudaa

Salamun alaykum: Please brothers and sisters, let us not talk about the petty details of the 'salafis.' And I use this term to describe a small segment of ahlus-sunnah wal-jamaacah for convenience, as every true Muslim would ideally love to only be called a Muslim. Sakina, I love the fact that you said we have more similarities than differences, so let's respect them. We should do exactly that, but I hope that you realize that there are many individuals from every madh'hab that break this rule, salafis included As for the truth regarding the true followers of ahlus-sunnah wal-jamaacah, TRUE salafis (who are no different than shaaficis, maalikis, etc...) DO NOT pledge their allegiance to King Fahad, etc... I really don't know where you got that from. This is not only degrading to your Muslim bretheren, but it also widens the bridge between you and your beloved bretheren. Scholars are to be respected, but they aren't out prophets, nor are they our saxaabah. What the majority of these scholars have done is pledge their allegiance to Allaah SWT and His prophet (SAW). For those of you who don't know this (and it sounds as though our beloved Sahal doesn't, and please pardon me if I'm mistaken), the group of people commonly referred to as 'salafis' do not follow a certain scholar (ex. Albani, bin Uthaymeen, etc...) but rather the SUNNAH. These are extremists within the 'salafis' and it is well-known that extremists misrepresent groups of all kings. Dear Sahal, it seems as though you're exploiting this fact (regarding the extremist salafis who follow Albani as though he was the only scholar on Earth) to discredit the rest of the God-fearing salafis. The true Salafis believe that these 'salafi' scholars, just like any scholar, have a duty to relay information pertaining to Islaam as a whole. You'll also find that many of the 'salafis' are referred to by that name without their approval. I have been raised by a mainstream family, and I've never even heard of practise of unquestionably obeying immam Shaafic. I've always been taught that Islaam is derived from the Qur'aan and sunnah, and our precious scholars such as Shaafic and other that came later (ex. Ibn Kathir) teach us with an amazingly objective mentality. But when my friends learned of the fact that I was neither shiici, nor Maaliki, nor Shaafici, etc..., they automotically called me a salafi and wahabi and urged me to repent since I was erring! Many people act in this ignorant fashion, and I still don't see how I differ from them (as I pray like they do, I fast, and my core beliefs are directly from the Qur'aan and sunnah as shown by the Prophet SAW and practised by his Saxaabah). Any good shaafici will know that the taqliid that is being practised today by many has never been approved by Shaafic himself. Also, scholars like Ibn Qayyim al Jawzi and Imaam Shaafici are all scholars we follow and respect and love, DID THEY EVER PLEDGE THEIR ALLEGIANCE to King Fahad (I'm sorry, but I still can't see why you would mention something so provocative and unsubstantiated, dear)? The concept is simple: follow the Qur'aan and the sunnah, why are people making it so difficult?